One of the more striking aspects of Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner’s recently flurry of interviews is his repeated distinction between Jews and “whites.” I wanted to come up with a picture of Matthew White with a black person to see if system of categorization makes much sense, but while Weiner gets his picture taken frequently, he does not get his picture taken with blacks or other nonwhites very much at all. The only black I could find him photographed with is film critic Elvis Mitchell below. For comparison sake, above is Weiner with George Lucas, who is primarily of British ancestry.

Weiner discussed depicting “Jews coming into their own in postwar America” at a Museum of Jewish Heritage event

ANNA SILMAN Follow

This weekend, “Mad Men” creator Matthew Weiner sat down with New York magazine film critic Matt Zoller Seitz at New York’s Museum of Jewish Heritage …

“I don’t like sweeping generalizations about the show, but if you want to say it’s the story of how we all feel like outsiders, absolutely,” said Weiner (who joked that “the only insider in this whole thing is Roger”). Throughout the evening, Weiner repeatedly emphasized the horizontal experience of marginalization; as he put it, “That [assimilated Jewish] identity is the same story as Don’s identity — how do we become white, how do I get my kid to go to Wesleyan so he can be in that line, what’s it going to take?” (Wesleyan, by the way, is where Weiner went to college.)

Here are some of the other fascinating ideas that came up:

On Rachel Mencken:

It can be tough to remember at this point, considering the number of mistresses Don has had, but one of his first extramarital relationships on the show was with Jewish department store heiress Rachel Mencken. Right from the get-go, her presence was a way for the show to explore the racism that was such an integral part of everyday American life. (As Pete Campbell observed in the pilot: “Adding money and education doesn’t take the rude edge out of people.”)

“The Jewish part of it, the female part of it, all of it was basically to establish the segregation, even in New York City,” said Weiner (who also reminded the audience that one of the early lines in the pilot was Don telling Rachel, “I’m not going to let a woman talk to me like this.”) Weiner explained that Pete’s line about “adding money and education” is something that he heard said in front of him as a child, growing up assimilated in a predominantly non-Jewish community, and that he wanted to show that this sort of “casual” racism can still be deeply harmful. “It is institutional, and it is villainous, and it is a separation,” he said. “And being of color, there’s no way to cross it.” …

One of Weiner’s goals, he suggested, was to simultaneously remind people of the overlap between Jewish culture and the culture at large, while also pointing out Jews’ non-white status and the sophisticated anti-Semitism that surrounded it — the fact that no matter how much Jews were able to pass, they always remained Other. …

Weiner also addressed early speculation that Don was Jewish, saying the idea was “totally surprising” to him, and that the name Dick Whitman wasn’t a reference to Don’s poeticism; rather, it was meant to indicate “White man.”

Other recent Matthew Weiner quotes making similar points:

- “I wanted to talk about America’s love affair with Israel. I love this idea of people like Don, who is white, looking at us and seeing us as heroes.”

- I think boutique agencies breaking off also started to bring Jews into the picture. These these were white agencies, populated by white people, using all of the typical philosophies that are used to exclude people.

Yes flight from White. Nobody wants to be White, as it denotes the Middle/Working class and thus is poison for a guy like Weiner.

BUT you’re looking at the wrong angle. Joss Whedon, to take a good example, could say the same thing. He’s actually said in interviews that Buffy was about anti-Semitism.

Weiner is in the entertainment business, but you have to understand where his money comes from and who his audience is: neither of them the masses. Weiner makes money not from residuals or points (J. Michael Stracynzski noted he received nothing in residuals/royalties from Babylon 5, perhaps among the five greatest TV shows ever made) but from straight up salary. So he’s always looking for his next gig. Being a SJW is part of getting his next gig.

Weiner’s audience is not people who watch HBO. It is movers and shakers wanting “coolness.” A guy like Michael Bay is tolerated because he makes obscene amounts of money, but someone like Lena Dunham who costs money in the end; is beloved because she generates status points among the glitterati.

It is important to note that almost NO ONE actually OWNS their content; save a few authors like JK Rowling, so they have massivly different incentives applying Charlie Munger’s insight into behavior.

Thought Experiment: A Jewish writer writing about early 1960s America, wanting to highlight Jewish issues, how many aging Nazis would crop up (and credibly) in his show plus Communist Arab sympathizers and PLO guys and the like? By contrast, Weiner wrote about WASPy bad boys who are really, really sexy but not good husband and father material. Female porn. But he wants artistic credibility points to get his next gig.

Almost no one in Hollywood is rewarded for putting butts in seats or selling toys (Robert Downey Jr. maybe the exception) as ownership is corporate not individual; so incentives tend towards networking / artistic status against the masses not John Wayne type iconic goals.

TL:DR; I’ve seen Joss Whedon a non-Jew talk about how he was brave in confronting anti-Semitism by having Willow in Buffy be both Jewish and Lesbian. Take that with as much faith as anything Matthew Weiner spews in an attempt to get hired for his next gig.

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Of course Jews are white; the only time anyone would say that Jews are not white was if they wanted to say they are not “one of us.” But whites don’t say that. Evidently, there is at least one Jew who does.

The “adding money and education” line was probably said, and it has been said about every up and coming (often immigrant) generation for time out of mind. Or does Weiner think Moliere’s “Le Bourgeois gentilhomme” is about Jews also?

The basic idea is that social climbing entails a number of short term fails, including sneering from the current upper class, an inflated sense of one’s own importance, value, and contributions, tremendous naivete about history and traditions, etc. This dude really needs to get over himself: “being of color”? Please.

Ha, I'm not sure if Sailer is being genuinely naive or taking the piss (in either case I'm loving this series) but plenty of Jews draw the distinction between themselves as being Jewish and not being the dreaded White.

Rappers Mac Miller and Riff Raff are Jewish, but they are always labeled as White rappers by the Hip Hop community and the African American community in general. I wonder how Matthew Weiner feels about Jewish rappers being referred to as White rappers.

Even the ones from Ethiopia ? If you consider jews white then you will have to also label Turks and Arabs white as well. Jews originated from non white lands, despite the occasional jew with blue eyes and blonde hair (same with Turks and Arabs), they are mostly swarthy middle eastern in appearance and I don't consider that white.

I heard a jewish colleague of mine say to two black colleagues, right in front of me, "We don't consider ourselves white." So, this feeling exists, and this woman felt sufficiently confident in expressing it publicly in front of me, not jewish, and two black women. So I know that that feeling exists among at least some jews. How many, I do not know. P.S. I'm no more "anti-Jewish" than I am anti-eskimo.

Somewhere out there there is a Jew named Benjamin who was teased mercilessly in my junior high school because he had tight kinky hair, as kinky as any black mans. His complexion was pale. He did not look swarthy Israeli. We called him Brillo. Jews did the most teasing. So are Jews white and do they have a racial hierarchy within? Where the more Aryan looking Jews rule the high school pecking order? Especially within the girls desiring and envying the Jewish girls who were blonder and paler? I would say yes and similar to blacks.

I never experienced any anti-Jewishness growing up. Not a bit. And I grew up in a very Goy part of the country, very far from Los Angeles. I was probably the first Jew most of my elementary school classmates had ever met.

When the lady at the doctor’s office asks me what race I am, I answer in a steady, clear voice and a smile on my face that I’m white.

Now I wish my anecdote could just cancel out Matthew Weiner’s so he’d shut the hell up.

Power CHild says:When the lady at the doctor’s office asks me what race I am, I answer in a steady, clear voice and a smile on my face that I’m white. Now I wish my anecdote could just cancel out Matthew Weiner’s so he’d shut the hell up.

Weiner is dealing in more than mere anecdote. Jews whiteness helped them "pass" of course, with all privileges attaining thereto, but it still took the primarily black Civil Rights Movement to remove some barriers against Jews. Jews were beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Movement, including enforcement of new laws, as well as white women, despite much huffing and puffing about how it was exclusively for "the culluds." For example, in the court action US versus Lake Lucerne 1968, the federal government sued so that restrictive covenants forbidding sale of land to both blacks AND Jews could not be used. Some decades earlier, your winning smile would not have counted for much, in a number of places. See:

by David R. Roediger. 2006. Working Toward Whiteness: How America's Immigrants Became White

.Salier says>b>One of Weiner’s goals, he suggested, was to simultaneously remind people of the overlap between Jewish culture and the culture at large, while also pointing out Jews’ non-white status and the sophisticated anti-Semitism that surrounded it — the fact that no matter how much Jews were able to pass, they always remained Other. …

Assorted "HBD" types are always pounding on Jews as being parasites leeching off a "purer" white stock, and indeed some suggest the Fuehrer's "cleansing" operation during the Holocaust is "understandable" and "rational" as a reaction of the host body purging said parasites. And of course the Jews are considered "white" now, but some decades before it was dubious whether they were fit to be included in the reputedly rarefied ranks of whiteness. It was only after World War 2 hat they were generally considered "whitewashed."

So Weiner spiel is not at all farfetched. And as far as many of "heriditarian" ilk, Jews certainly remain the despised or feared "Other." See:

Karen Brodkin 1998. How Jews Became White Folks and what that Says about Race in America. http://www.amazon.com/Became-White-Folks-About-America/dp/081352590X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1432421307&sr=1-1&keywords=How+Jews+Became+White+Folks-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.It’s slightly demented to see Los Angeles in 1981 as a big WASP conspiracy against Jews, but, hey, whatever it works.

Interesting. During the 1980s when anti-semitism expression was at an all time low, the Simon Weisenthal Center of Los Angeles, had the most successful fund-raising operation of any domestic Jewish organization. So says Jewish author Edward Shapiro.

Reasonable to assume that the Jews in America could eventually direct the government to classify themselves racially as Jewish — it’s only a matter of at what point does it become “good for the Jews” to do so. Obviously.

The USA has never had a Middle Eastern or Semitic racial category because of Jewish concerns. This leads to Saudis, Iraqis et al coming here and absurdly being classified as white. It also has led to Jews taking huge numbers of white spots in any affirmative action context.

Weiner’s using the academically hot definition of “Whiteness,” in which Whiteness equals normality. It’s been pretty trendy for a while now.Cf things like How The Irish Became White, etc. Heck, I had an Americanist colleague once tell me, in all seriousness, that the Irish Catholics didn’t really become White until JFK was inaugurated.Until then, they were only White with an asterisk.

"Weiner’s using the academically hot definition of “Whiteness,” in which Whiteness equals normality."

I have also seen some people define Whiteness as any group that treats another dark skin group badly. There is a liberal blogger named Ediberto Roman who brought up Haitian immigrants in The Dominican Republic as an example of Whites racially oppressing Blacks.

So Dominicans are a White ethnic group because they don't like Haitians, lol. In the future will there be a book titled "How The Dominicans Became White?".

Clearly we are all nothing more than so many albatrosses around one anothers necks. Maybe it is time for Whites to disband. The Irish can go back to being Irish, the Italians can go back to being Italians, and the Generics can all recall how they are 1/16th Cherokee.

So where did the term "irish n-word" come from? I grew up on the west coast, so we didn't really have ethnic Irish running around. None that I was aware of, anyway. However, when I moved, for a short time, to the east coast, I heard that term on occasion, and I wondered about it's derivation.

Admittedly, when I was on the east coast, I did meet some american irishmen who were quite the piece of work. Often dumb and mean, and they could supercharge it with alcohol. Later, I met a number of Irishmen in Ireland, and found them to be quite a bit different from the Americanized version. Irish from Ireland weren't generally like that. Nice, easy-going, compassionate, and many read books.

Anybody with any ideas of what that's all about?
Why do a noticeable number of americanized full-blooded Irish seem riddled with pathologies, while Irish from Ireland generally aren't?

Well, it depends on how you define white. The Nazis would occasionally call an Aryan they didn’t like a ‘white Jew’. A lot of WNs exclude Jews as white because their roots trace back to Asia rather than Europe…but then, you don’t see them going to huge lengths to exclude, say, Armenians.

I think, in modern America, the definition most people use is ‘descended from enough people from Europe or close to it that your skin is some shade of pink’. From this point of view Weiner is white. But, of course, white isn’t cool, so he’s trying to claim a little oppressed-person cred.

Apparently my previous statements were mistaken and lots of people actually believe this:

"Well, it depends on how you define white. The Nazis would occasionally call an Aryan they didn’t like a ‘white Jew’. A lot of WNs exclude Jews as white because their roots trace back to Asia rather than Europe…but then, you don’t see them going to huge lengths to exclude, say, Armenians."

The thing is though Ashkenazi Jews are not genetically 100 percent Middle Eastern. They are a mixture of European and Middle Eastern. That is why Ashkenazi Jews on average are not as dark as pure unmixed Middle Eastern people like Jordanians and Saudi Arabians for example.

Have we gotten into the realm of transblack, transcolored, and so on? Perhaps Mathew Weiner is just a Transblack person in transition.

I mean, if people get to pick their gender, it seems to me that they should be able to pick their racial identity. Also their religion. Transblack, transwhite, transasian, transindian, transtrans (that would be for guys who decided they were women but changed their minds.) Transjew, transplant, transchristian, expectant couples would be transparents.

The possibilities are endless. Intersectionality is turning into some kind of Trans-actional analysis, like Trans-chess or Trans-go where all you have to do is position yourself into supreme victimization which, simply by being victimized, endows one with tremendous authority and entitlement.

Genetically speaking, Jews are an outlier group in Europe, but they also don't cluster well with Middle Easterners. They are a group in between the two, and are in many respects closer to Europeans than to Middle Easterners. In many respects (because of both drift and differential selection) they are quite a bit different from both. Berlusconi or Putin are closer related to me than Netanyahu, but Netanyahu is closer related to me than King Abdullah of Jordan.

In a concentric circle of loyalty, I'd be more loyal to Italians, Poles or Swedes than to Jews, but more loyal to Jews than to Iraqi Arabs. I'd be roughly as loyal to Jews as to Turks maybe. Of course, real life doesn't work that way. People's family loyalties are somewhat arbitrary. I'm equally related to all cousins (actually, that's not exactly true because of how genetic inheritance works), but some of my cousins are closer to me than others. I have a cousin with whom I rarely if ever talked to in my life, whereas with some of my cousins I talk to at least once every few months, even though we live in different countries. Why should we expect nationalism or racialism (which is basically a kind of super-extended familism) to be any different?

I also don't think it helps Jews in the eyes of racially conscious whites if they are white. If they are white, than they are also majority traitors. All of their ethnic organizations are traitors to the white cause. I haven't even seen a Jewish organization anywhere that didn't promote multiculturalism. Pro-Israel nationalist activism is correlated with pro-immigration activism. Politically active billionaires who donate to Israeli causes also donate to pro-immigration causes. In other words, for Jews, being racially conscious rarely leads to anti-immigrationism, and most politically active Jews are both nationalists (as Jews) and pro-immigration (in America and Europe, but only pro-Jewish immigration in Israel). If I view them as just belonging to a different race and being loyal to that different race, then I could at least accept it. If I view them as belonging to the very same race as I do, then they are traitors. In most people's eyes, being a traitor is worse than being a member of another tribe.

Also, regardless of what one thinks of Jews, whether enemies or traitors (the large majority of them, at any rate), on the personal level many could be pleasant acquaintances. Some of them are commenting here (although they should spend less of their energies trying to persuade us that Jews are not so bad, after all, and more of their energies trying to persuade their fellow Jews that they should change their ways - believe me, if Jews changed their behavior, we'd notice), and of course it would be great if for some reason they suddenly turned around. I still would think we cannot just forget who killed who, because it's an important question. I agree with Kevin MacDonald that Jews were a necessary but not sufficient condition for the current disaster, and I'd think it warrants at least a discussion. I wouldn't fully be happy if Jews turned around, led us back from the edge of the precipice, and then we would forget all that was bad. We should discuss what happened lest it gets repeated.

Weiner's using the academically hot definition of "Whiteness," in which Whiteness equals normality. It's been pretty trendy for a while now.Cf things like How The Irish Became White, etc. Heck, I had an Americanist colleague once tell me, in all seriousness, that the Irish Catholics didn't really become White until JFK was inaugurated.Until then, they were only White with an asterisk.

“Weiner’s using the academically hot definition of “Whiteness,” in which Whiteness equals normality.”

I have also seen some people define Whiteness as any group that treats another dark skin group badly. There is a liberal blogger named Ediberto Roman who brought up Haitian immigrants in The Dominican Republic as an example of Whites racially oppressing Blacks.

So Dominicans are a White ethnic group because they don’t like Haitians, lol. In the future will there be a book titled “How The Dominicans Became White?”.

Weiner's using the academically hot definition of "Whiteness," in which Whiteness equals normality. It's been pretty trendy for a while now.Cf things like How The Irish Became White, etc. Heck, I had an Americanist colleague once tell me, in all seriousness, that the Irish Catholics didn't really become White until JFK was inaugurated.Until then, they were only White with an asterisk.

Clearly we are all nothing more than so many albatrosses around one anothers necks. Maybe it is time for Whites to disband. The Irish can go back to being Irish, the Italians can go back to being Italians, and the Generics can all recall how they are 1/16th Cherokee.

Well, it depends on how you define white. The Nazis would occasionally call an Aryan they didn't like a 'white Jew'. A lot of WNs exclude Jews as white because their roots trace back to Asia rather than Europe...but then, you don't see them going to huge lengths to exclude, say, Armenians.

I think, in modern America, the definition most people use is 'descended from enough people from Europe or close to it that your skin is some shade of pink'. From this point of view Weiner is white. But, of course, white isn't cool, so he's trying to claim a little oppressed-person cred.

Apparently my previous statements were mistaken and lots of people actually believe this:

“Well, it depends on how you define white. The Nazis would occasionally call an Aryan they didn’t like a ‘white Jew’. A lot of WNs exclude Jews as white because their roots trace back to Asia rather than Europe…but then, you don’t see them going to huge lengths to exclude, say, Armenians.”

The thing is though Ashkenazi Jews are not genetically 100 percent Middle Eastern. They are a mixture of European and Middle Eastern. That is why Ashkenazi Jews on average are not as dark as pure unmixed Middle Eastern people like Jordanians and Saudi Arabians for example.

A recent study estimated that “multiracial individuals with some black ancestry are about 30% less likely to identify as black once affirmative action policies are banned. In contrast, multiracial individuals with some Asian ancestry are about 20% more likely to identify as Asian once the bans are implemented.”

Mad Men was one of the most crypto-conservative shows to breakthrough to the mainstream in recent years. Compared with other shows, it’s mostly a celebration of Straight White Males being Straight White Males and being loved for it (even by Jewish women).

Compare it to e.g. Joss Whedon’s feminist schlock that uses e.g. what liberals refer to as “numinous negro” main characters, like Shepherd Book.

Matthew Weiner being motivated by some weird Jewish anxieties produces more pro-White-male, pro-Steve-Sailer material than is produced by mainstream NW euros like Joss Whedon.

Well, it depends on how you define white. The Nazis would occasionally call an Aryan they didn't like a 'white Jew'. A lot of WNs exclude Jews as white because their roots trace back to Asia rather than Europe...but then, you don't see them going to huge lengths to exclude, say, Armenians.

I think, in modern America, the definition most people use is 'descended from enough people from Europe or close to it that your skin is some shade of pink'. From this point of view Weiner is white. But, of course, white isn't cool, so he's trying to claim a little oppressed-person cred.

Apparently my previous statements were mistaken and lots of people actually believe this:

Have we gotten into the realm of transblack, transcolored, and so on? Perhaps Mathew Weiner is just a Transblack person in transition.

I mean, if people get to pick their gender, it seems to me that they should be able to pick their racial identity. Also their religion. Transblack, transwhite, transasian, transindian, transtrans (that would be for guys who decided they were women but changed their minds.) Transjew, transplant, transchristian, expectant couples would be transparents.

The possibilities are endless. Intersectionality is turning into some kind of Trans-actional analysis, like Trans-chess or Trans-go where all you have to do is position yourself into supreme victimization which, simply by being victimized, endows one with tremendous authority and entitlement.

The transgender people believe that they really mentally are the other gender. So they'd say they don't have a choice.

Yes, I find this whole thing as silly as you do.

As regards the transgenders, I'd actually say many of them have a medical problem where their brain gender doesn't match their physical sex, likely due to a hormonal issue in utero or something similar. That this is anything to be celebrated is another story.

As regards the Jewish Young Adults claiming they're not white, I'd say they are trying too hard to be cool. But it is kind of funny that liberal Jews and Nazis agree on something...extremes meet?

I think too much is being made of “Mad Men”. It wasn’t a very good show, it was just popular with a certain kind of people. I watched it, but it doesn’t stack up against any other TV program that pretends to seriousness, and any number that don’t.

These people like to look at stuff, and think they are having deep thoughts about it, and listen to people saying stuff, and think they are having deep thoughts about it. Thinking they are having deep thoughts is to them much more important than having deep thoughts.

I was watching recently and four main characters were together, and it occurred to me they were all adulterers. Pretty much everybody on the show is an adulterer, and the few characters who aren’t are losers. They are all crappy to one another, but adolescent nihilism and narcissism are the basic product of “sophisticated” cable show.

Draper’s phoniness was supposed to be a theme, but they dropped that pretty early. Being phony, even criminally so is regarded as a normal life strategy for successful people. It’s only bad if you get caught, like Lane Price.

Weiner’s elite Jewish touchiness is an old thing too. Upper-class Jews have been touchy about not getting the deference they think they are entitled to since as long as there have been upper-class Jews. Arrogant, entitled rich people are just pathetic dorks, and everybody knows this, including them. They know all the butt-kissing they get ends the moment the money does, and they know it.

Well, it depends on how you define white. The Nazis would occasionally call an Aryan they didn't like a 'white Jew'. A lot of WNs exclude Jews as white because their roots trace back to Asia rather than Europe...but then, you don't see them going to huge lengths to exclude, say, Armenians.

I think, in modern America, the definition most people use is 'descended from enough people from Europe or close to it that your skin is some shade of pink'. From this point of view Weiner is white. But, of course, white isn't cool, so he's trying to claim a little oppressed-person cred.

Apparently my previous statements were mistaken and lots of people actually believe this:

Weiner's using the academically hot definition of "Whiteness," in which Whiteness equals normality. It's been pretty trendy for a while now.Cf things like How The Irish Became White, etc. Heck, I had an Americanist colleague once tell me, in all seriousness, that the Irish Catholics didn't really become White until JFK was inaugurated.Until then, they were only White with an asterisk.

I always wondered,what we’re the Irish before they became Irish? A non white race that looked white?

Have we gotten into the realm of transblack, transcolored, and so on? Perhaps Mathew Weiner is just a Transblack person in transition.

I mean, if people get to pick their gender, it seems to me that they should be able to pick their racial identity. Also their religion. Transblack, transwhite, transasian, transindian, transtrans (that would be for guys who decided they were women but changed their minds.) Transjew, transplant, transchristian, expectant couples would be transparents.

The possibilities are endless. Intersectionality is turning into some kind of Trans-actional analysis, like Trans-chess or Trans-go where all you have to do is position yourself into supreme victimization which, simply by being victimized, endows one with tremendous authority and entitlement.

The transgender people believe that they really mentally are the other gender. So they’d say they don’t have a choice.

Yes, I find this whole thing as silly as you do.

As regards the transgenders, I’d actually say many of them have a medical problem where their brain gender doesn’t match their physical sex, likely due to a hormonal issue in utero or something similar. That this is anything to be celebrated is another story.

As regards the Jewish Young Adults claiming they’re not white, I’d say they are trying too hard to be cool. But it is kind of funny that liberal Jews and Nazis agree on something…extremes meet?

>>The transgender people believe that they really mentally are the other gender. So they’d say they don’t have a choice.

As far as men go, no they don't. Male transexuals know damn well that they are not the other gender. Male transexuals fall into one of two categories: 1) effeminite homosexuals who parade around as women to hopefully make themselves attractive to "real" men. 2) Heterosexuals (mainly), who feel no more like a girl inside than you or I and who get a sexual thrill from this transgender business. I do agree that those in this second category are mentally ill.

“I don’t like sweeping generalizations about the show, but if you want to say it’s the story of how we all feel like outsiders, absolutely,”

Exactly. More or less everyone feels like an outsider. Including whites. Every Southerner, Scots Irish, Catholic, Eastern European, Non English speaking Northern European. Until the 1940′s, Italians were considered very non white.

I liked the show. Wiener’s blather? Yea … Idiocy. And, this wasn’t a one man project. As long as he didn’t utterly ruin it, he had the resources to put out a great product.

The only true insider was Pete Campbell. “His mother Dorothy “Dot” Campbell nee’ Dykeman is descended from an old-money family whose riches date back to before the Revolution, and among her ancestors was a farmer with Isaac Roosevelt.”

Pete’s blue blooded ancestors managed to instill a sense of entitlement and expensive tastes, but squandered his inheritance. In order to retain/regain his status of insider, he was the most obnoxious conniving suck up on the show.

Rachel Mencken? She was hot. Most of the other of Don’s women were pathetic. And Bobbie Barrett? If she wasn’t Jewish, what was she? Why would Don bother? And Sylvia Rosen. Yawn. She won’t go along with Don’s BDSM fantasy.

“I don’t like sweeping generalizations about the show, but if you want to say it’s the story of how we all feel like outsiders, absolutely,”

This is what happen when you have a non-homogenous population and steady immigration: a lot of people who feel alienated from the country they live in.

I went to high school with a member of a Korean family who later achieved great success and was invited back to speak at the school. In his talk, he mentioned how he always felt out of place because there were so few Koreans in America at the time. His family came here as political refugees, but the kids felt alienated because they were not in a country full of people like themselves. So naturally they all grew up to be major-league leftists.

Askenazi Jews are an ethnicity of white that don’t like their dominant color. It’s like an Italian saying that he’s not “white”, he’s Italian.

It’s bizarre until you look at it through a post-1960s lens, where assimilation is bad and that white people are guilty once proven white, and can therefore be abused/suckered/attacked/ taken from. Then Weiner’s words make sense: so long as he isn’t a member of the hated untouchable caste, he can join in everyone else in abusing it.

The 1960s Civil Rights Acts codified the legal notion that whites are guilty until proven innocent. The left used the media to push this idea socially. So now, legally and socially, it’s a free-for-all on whites. The trick for whites isn’t to fight it; it’s to someone separate yourself from “whites” to join in the plunder. Hence Ashkenazi Jews, females, and gays have worked very hard to distinguish themselves on this basis. Now the category isn’t pure “whites” it’s “white straight gentile males”, as many of the darker dissident right radio hosts have noted.

Of course, history has a funny way of having the abuser become the abused.

Now onto to more Kristen Ritter/The B from Apartment 23 cancellation gossip!

“I don’t like sweeping generalizations about the show, but if you want to say it’s the story of how we all feel like outsiders, absolutely,”

Exactly. More or less everyone feels like an outsider. Including whites. Every Southerner, Scots Irish, Catholic, Eastern European, Non English speaking Northern European. Until the 1940's, Italians were considered very non white.

I liked the show. Wiener's blather? Yea ... Idiocy. And, this wasn't a one man project. As long as he didn't utterly ruin it, he had the resources to put out a great product.

The only true insider was Pete Campbell. "His mother Dorothy "Dot" Campbell nee' Dykeman is descended from an old-money family whose riches date back to before the Revolution, and among her ancestors was a farmer with Isaac Roosevelt."

Pete's blue blooded ancestors managed to instill a sense of entitlement and expensive tastes, but squandered his inheritance. In order to retain/regain his status of insider, he was the most obnoxious conniving suck up on the show.

Rachel Mencken? She was hot. Most of the other of Don's women were pathetic. And Bobbie Barrett? If she wasn't Jewish, what was she? Why would Don bother? And Sylvia Rosen. Yawn. She won't go along with Don's BDSM fantasy.

Bush running as an alternative to eastern elites is just one more but of evidence that American voters aren't paying much attention. (See also: McCain running as an outsider maverick, Gore running as an intellectual.)

Mad Men was one of the most crypto-conservative shows to breakthrough to the mainstream in recent years. Compared with other shows, it's mostly a celebration of Straight White Males being Straight White Males and being loved for it (even by Jewish women).

Compare it to e.g. Joss Whedon's feminist schlock that uses e.g. what liberals refer to as "numinous negro" main characters, like Shepherd Book.

Matthew Weiner being motivated by some weird Jewish anxieties produces more pro-White-male, pro-Steve-Sailer material than is produced by mainstream NW euros like Joss Whedon.

Like I said, I want guys like Weiner to come out of the closet but what incentives do they have at present?

Ronald Reagan said to Gorbachev that the Soviets and US would unite if the Earth was attacked by space aliens. I think it will take anti-Semitic space aliens to drive Matthew Weiner into the arms of White America. Having the world taken over by an anti-Semitic supercomputer might do the trick too but that's only slightly more likely. Apart from that I'm afraid I'm out of ideas.

It makes sense for Jews in the US to not identify as White. Whiteness is an identity that only makes sense when there are other exotic races around to act as contrast and the overwhelming majority of America’s Jews have had very little contact with extra-European races until the last few generations. In a nutshell, the forefathers of the Ashkenazim now in America have defined themselves in contrast and in opposition to their Christian European neighbours for the last 1,500 years but have only been in the New World in large numbers for roughly a century and a half. They’ve had ten times longer to develop the Matthew Weiner worldview than the White American one.

Like I said, I want guys like Weiner to come out of the closet but what incentives do they have at present?

Ronald Reagan said to Gorbachev that the Soviets and US would unite if the Earth was attacked by space aliens. I think it will take anti-Semitic space aliens to drive Matthew Weiner into the arms of White America. Having the world taken over by an anti-Semitic supercomputer might do the trick too but that’s only slightly more likely. Apart from that I’m afraid I’m out of ideas.

It was actually the _Porcellian_, which I only bring up because 'shunned by the porcelain club' in college is the basis for a really, really good joke I can't think of yet--the toilet is known as the 'porcelain god', which of course is worshipped after a night of heavy drinking.

Biographies of FDR tend to emphasize his disdain for poor southerners. They mention how he referred to them in private as "good for nothing bums" and that he directed New Deal spending to the South for votes and political support.

Not exactly, but just because it's beloved by upwardly mobile white progressives doesn't mean it's unabashed leftist propaganda, even if its creator says so. (It's a lot like The Wire in that respect). People talk about it like it's Crash, which won an Oscar for depicting a world where everybody is openly and loudly racist all the time, but the "-isms" of Mad Men are always highly contextualized, and can't be extricated from specific personal matters in the plot. They also often turn out to be the opposite of what you've been trained to expect:

- The only person who gets fired for not putting out is a man.
- Pete Campbell is probably the most privileged (in the legacy blue-blood sense) member of the firm, and, at least in the early episodes, the most sociopathic. He's also the only person ever to call somebody a racist as a personal attack.
- The black secretary, Dawn, falsifies a timecard, but she can't be fired because it will hurt the firm's diversity numbers. She gets moved from her existing position to the front desk, but once Bert notices her there, he says she must be moved because clients visiting the firm can't all be expected to be as enlightened as SCDP is. As a result, she is promoted to head of personnel (the birth of the Black HR Lady?). It's a great microcosmic re-enactment of racial hot-potatoism, how things that happen to blacks don't have much to do with blacks per se but are the downstream effects of conflicts between white people.

Oh, but one time Roger Sterling sang a song in blackface. Everybody agrees that's supposed to be a brilliant multi-layered examination of racism, because blackface.

Mad Men also is conservative in that it's one of the few shows on television that's actually about business. (Now that the Office is over, Silicon Valley and House of Lies are really the only other scripted shows about business). The typical socialists hollywood liberals will only depict businessman as rapacious capitalist villains. Weiner actually demonstrates a real respect for commerce and capitalism, and the work and talent required to be successful in those endeavors. Particularly noteworthy is that even the advertising industry, typically denounced as the most "worthless" and "non-value adding" economic activity, is generally depicted as making a positive contribution.

“how do we become white, how do I get my kid to go to Wesleyan so he can be in that line, what’s it going to take?”

For someone who professes to be all about equality, he only seems to obsess about assimilating with upper crust whites(who socio-economically exclude most white people, by the way).

If Jews simply want to assimilate with ordinary whites or lower-class whites, there never would have been a problem. A bunch of ‘trailer trash’ would gladly accept Weiner and his ilk as one of their own. Bob Dylan never had a problem hanging with ordinary white kids in Hibbing. They were more welcoming to him that rich NY Jews were to him(until he showed promise).

But like the Jew in ‘Lost In America’, I don’t think Weiner cares about ‘those whites’. Too ordinary.

His obsession is assimilation with cream of the crop whites.

So much for egalitarianism.

If he really wants to just assimilate with whites, rub shoulders with any bunch of whites in a community college. They’ll gladly accept him and his people as fellow whites. But he wants to live a world that excludes ‘those whites’.

The Weiners apparently white flighted from Baltimore in the mid 1970s (his father's c.v., says he was at Johns Hopkins from 1962-1973), so he probably has a certain amount of trepidations over discussing that. "Mad Men" is considerably more honest about the rise of black crime in NYC in the 1960s than most 21st Century artifacts.

Moving to Hancock Park in L.A. put him in with WASP old money neighbors. They're awfully rare within LA municipal limits, but Hancock Park is where there's more of them than anywhere else west of the Pasadena-South Pasadena-San Marino belt. It's slightly demented to see Los Angeles in 1981 as a big WASP conspiracy against Jews, but, hey, whatever it works. Similarly, George W. Bush got a lot of motivation out of assuming snobby Eastern liberals were putting him down for having a Texan accent.

Jews consider themselves white or not white as it suits them. Quotas at Harvard? They qualify as white, entitling them to far more than 2% of the 70% white “share” of the student body. Need more “minorities” on the Supreme Court, or in small business? They qualify as not white.

I had a guy tell me that Elena Kagan was great for a SCOTUS nominee she’s a “minority,” even though the court already had two Jews at the time of her nomination.

Jews consider themselves white or not white as it suits them. Quotas at Harvard? They qualify as white, entitling them to far more than 2% of the 70% white "share" of the student body. Need more "minorities" on the Supreme Court, or in small business? They qualify as not white.

I had a guy tell me that Elena Kagan was great for a SCOTUS nominee she's a "minority," even though the court already had two Jews at the time of her nomination.

I never experienced any anti-Jewishness growing up. Not a bit. And I grew up in a very Goy part of the country, very far from Los Angeles. I was probably the first Jew most of my elementary school classmates had ever met.

When the lady at the doctor's office asks me what race I am, I answer in a steady, clear voice and a smile on my face that I'm white.

Now I wish my anecdote could just cancel out Matthew Weiner's so he'd shut the hell up.

"how do we become white, how do I get my kid to go to Wesleyan so he can be in that line, what’s it going to take?"

For someone who professes to be all about equality, he only seems to obsess about assimilating with upper crust whites(who socio-economically exclude most white people, by the way).

If Jews simply want to assimilate with ordinary whites or lower-class whites, there never would have been a problem. A bunch of 'trailer trash' would gladly accept Weiner and his ilk as one of their own. Bob Dylan never had a problem hanging with ordinary white kids in Hibbing. They were more welcoming to him that rich NY Jews were to him(until he showed promise).

But like the Jew in 'Lost In America', I don't think Weiner cares about 'those whites'. Too ordinary.

His obsession is assimilation with cream of the crop whites.

So much for egalitarianism.

If he really wants to just assimilate with whites, rub shoulders with any bunch of whites in a community college. They'll gladly accept him and his people as fellow whites. But he wants to live a world that excludes 'those whites'.

The Weiners apparently white flighted from Baltimore in the mid 1970s (his father’s c.v., says he was at Johns Hopkins from 1962-1973), so he probably has a certain amount of trepidations over discussing that. “Mad Men” is considerably more honest about the rise of black crime in NYC in the 1960s than most 21st Century artifacts.

Moving to Hancock Park in L.A. put him in with WASP old money neighbors. They’re awfully rare within LA municipal limits, but Hancock Park is where there’s more of them than anywhere else west of the Pasadena-South Pasadena-San Marino belt. It’s slightly demented to see Los Angeles in 1981 as a big WASP conspiracy against Jews, but, hey, whatever it works. Similarly, George W. Bush got a lot of motivation out of assuming snobby Eastern liberals were putting him down for having a Texan accent.

For him to convince Americans that he was a West Texas rancher is truly an act of marketing genius. Especially when the Bush family used to be disdained (by native Texans) as overeducated northeastern carpetbaggers.

Of course Jews are white; the only time anyone would say that Jews are not white was if they wanted to say they are not "one of us." But whites don't say that. Evidently, there is at least one Jew who does.

The “adding money and education” line was probably said, and it has been said about every up and coming (often immigrant) generation for time out of mind. Or does Weiner think Moliere's "Le Bourgeois gentilhomme" is about Jews also?

The basic idea is that social climbing entails a number of short term fails, including sneering from the current upper class, an inflated sense of one's own importance, value, and contributions, tremendous naivete about history and traditions, etc. This dude really needs to get over himself: "being of color"? Please.

Ha, I’m not sure if Sailer is being genuinely naive or taking the piss (in either case I’m loving this series) but plenty of Jews draw the distinction between themselves as being Jewish and not being the dreaded White.

Wallace just countered Freeman's point about "White history month" that Wallace (William Wallace and Robert the Bruce!) is, in fact, Jewish; and then Freeman says the way to stop racism is that he'll stop referring to Wallace as White. Lulz.

Sons of Jewry, I am Mike Wallace. If I were Wiener I'd consume the WASPs with fireballs in my eyes and bolts of lightning from my arse. I am Mike Wallace and I see a whole cultural-marxist army of my brethren beating down those WASP country club doors, here in defiance of their tyranny.

They may ban us from their golf courses but they will never own their MEDIA!!! //wild cheering//

The transgender people believe that they really mentally are the other gender. So they'd say they don't have a choice.

Yes, I find this whole thing as silly as you do.

As regards the transgenders, I'd actually say many of them have a medical problem where their brain gender doesn't match their physical sex, likely due to a hormonal issue in utero or something similar. That this is anything to be celebrated is another story.

As regards the Jewish Young Adults claiming they're not white, I'd say they are trying too hard to be cool. But it is kind of funny that liberal Jews and Nazis agree on something...extremes meet?

>>The transgender people believe that they really mentally are the other gender. So they’d say they don’t have a choice.

As far as men go, no they don’t. Male transexuals know damn well that they are not the other gender. Male transexuals fall into one of two categories: 1) effeminite homosexuals who parade around as women to hopefully make themselves attractive to “real” men. 2) Heterosexuals (mainly), who feel no more like a girl inside than you or I and who get a sexual thrill from this transgender business. I do agree that those in this second category are mentally ill.

Well to be more precise they have a sexual orientation called autogynephilia, which is a sexual and or romantic desire to be a female. And like other unusual sexual orientations such as pedophilia it appears to have no cure, it can only be suppressed, moderated or indulged.

The vast majority of AGs opt for the first two options, but an increasing minority are becoming transsexuals.

The philias are a serious problem for whites and other high IQ races, and we should be thankful their strong impulse control usually stops them acting out their philiac desires.

The Weiners apparently white flighted from Baltimore in the mid 1970s (his father's c.v., says he was at Johns Hopkins from 1962-1973), so he probably has a certain amount of trepidations over discussing that. "Mad Men" is considerably more honest about the rise of black crime in NYC in the 1960s than most 21st Century artifacts.

Moving to Hancock Park in L.A. put him in with WASP old money neighbors. They're awfully rare within LA municipal limits, but Hancock Park is where there's more of them than anywhere else west of the Pasadena-South Pasadena-San Marino belt. It's slightly demented to see Los Angeles in 1981 as a big WASP conspiracy against Jews, but, hey, whatever it works. Similarly, George W. Bush got a lot of motivation out of assuming snobby Eastern liberals were putting him down for having a Texan accent.

Bush comes from a family of snobby east coast liberal Republicans.

For him to convince Americans that he was a West Texas rancher is truly an act of marketing genius. Especially when the Bush family used to be disdained (by native Texans) as overeducated northeastern carpetbaggers.

I think the first time I heard Jews described as non-white was in a radio broadcast by William Luther Pierce, who was one of the nastiest anti-semites who ever lived. He was the furthest thing from a holocaust denier: he thought the murder of millions of innocents was a glorious accomplishment that the Nazis could be proud of, and should be magnified, not denied. He cast the “non-white” slur in order to shock, and he succeeded, as far as I was concerned. Why would Weiner want to embrace the ideology of so hateful a person? For being intelligent, why are Jews so damn stupid?

Well, yes and no. Pierce was certainly hateful to Jews, but he believed that the Holocaust was real but of a far lower magnitude than the "official figure". In reading his (pretty good) "authorized biography", it's apparent Pierce's animosity to Jews came from a Jewish step-grandfather his mother hated, and Pierce was very much a mama's boy.

His own life was hardly a paragon of white racialism. He had only two children, twin sons, and was married to at least four or five other women all of which were childless marriages. He was almost certainly financially indigent until one of his disciples handed him a few hundred thousand dollars of what was certainly stolen money, and almost every one of the people he surrounded himself with proved to be completely dysfunctional when he passed on (or, in some cases, before that.)

The numerous documentaries and other filmed appearances he left behind show a man who was highly intelligent but in many ways foppish and without much good judgment.

A highly intelligent Jewish acquaintence of mine had met Pierce a couple of times ( I met him once myself) and commented to me afterward that he considered Pierce living proof that with enemies like him, Jews had little to worry about over the long haul. Jews, he said to me, are much like Mike Tyson: the only thing that can ever really beat them is themselves. And, he said, that they do more often than not.

Good question. A Jewish neurological surgeon in San Diego believes we should take in masses of African muslim immigrants who (one could guess) would love to see his grandchildren violently dead? why? The surgeon is clearly extremely intelligent and professionally competent. But I see very wealthy Unitarians, Lutherans, and high IQ high wealth liberals of a variety of religions, advocating exactly the same positions. I would think that any wealthy successful group would be more naturally conservative so as to conserve the society in which they had accrued such tremendous advantages. But this is not the case in the US and not just for Jews.

FDR felt like an outsider too. Got snubbed by the Porcelain Club, so took up the poor southern white's cause with the TVA. Bless his soul.

Indeed.

It was actually the _Porcellian_, which I only bring up because ‘shunned by the porcelain club’ in college is the basis for a really, really good joke I can’t think of yet–the toilet is known as the ‘porcelain god’, which of course is worshipped after a night of heavy drinking.

Ronald Reagan said to Gorbachev that the Soviets and US would unite if the Earth was attacked by space aliens. I think it will take anti-Semitic space aliens to drive Matthew Weiner into the arms of White America. Having the world taken over by an anti-Semitic supercomputer might do the trick too but that's only slightly more likely. Apart from that I'm afraid I'm out of ideas.

Historically Jews have expressed sympathy and fellow-feeling towards White and Christian gentiles when they were under pressure from Muslims but those cases are few and far between. I guess if Los Angeles and New York start getting the same ratio of Muslims, Jews and White Christians that we saw in Algiers during French rule, and those cities descend into similar levels of violence, then we can expect to see Cupid's arrow fly and Jewish love for non-Muslims will blossom. Otherwise don't bet on it.

The far more likely future is that the Muslims will remain a billion strong in their faith and the Jews and others of the West will abolish themselves in favour of a post-national, post-ethnic blob. Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams is already on his way there: http://img.rasset.ie/000aa11d-642.jpg

That's Gerry with a celebrity Irish tranny called Panti and the Minister of Justice, Frances Fitzgerald celebrating the referendum result in Ireland.

Ha, I'm not sure if Sailer is being genuinely naive or taking the piss (in either case I'm loving this series) but plenty of Jews draw the distinction between themselves as being Jewish and not being the dreaded White.

Wallace just countered Freeman’s point about “White history month” that Wallace (William Wallace and Robert the Bruce!) is, in fact, Jewish; and then Freeman says the way to stop racism is that he’ll stop referring to Wallace as White. Lulz.

Sons of Jewry, I am Mike Wallace. If I were Wiener I’d consume the WASPs with fireballs in my eyes and bolts of lightning from my arse. I am Mike Wallace and I see a whole cultural-marxist army of my brethren beating down those WASP country club doors, here in defiance of their tyranny.

They may ban us from their golf courses but they will never own their MEDIA!!! //wild cheering//

FDR felt like an outsider too. Got snubbed by the Porcelain Club, so took up the poor southern white's cause with the TVA. Bless his soul.

Biographies of FDR tend to emphasize his disdain for poor southerners. They mention how he referred to them in private as “good for nothing bums” and that he directed New Deal spending to the South for votes and political support.

Biographies of FDR tend to emphasize his disdain for poor southerners. They mention how he referred to them in private as “good for nothing bums” and that he directed New Deal spending to the South for votes and political support.

On the other hand, his poor Yankee cousins in Maine, Vermont, and especially appleknocker New York could see right through the guy. He lost every rural county in the Northeast, save a few froggy ones on the Quebec border. By 1938-- the year of the "interstate" slop decision-- he lost much of the rural Midwest as well.

I sometimes wonder if Southerners enjoyed voting for him precisely because those people hated him. As they showed in 1948 and 1964, they were quite capable of rebelling, had they only wished to.

"Biographies of FDR tend to emphasize his disdain for poor southerners."

Not the ones I read. My favorite, "First Class Tempermant" by Christopher Ward. FDR's 12 years in Warm Springs brought him in touch with the locals, whom he grew to like. Indeed, his crippled condition made him much more empathetic for the less favored of his countrymen. Not that is was not a politician always casting for votes.

I think the first time I heard Jews described as non-white was in a radio broadcast by William Luther Pierce, who was one of the nastiest anti-semites who ever lived. He was the furthest thing from a holocaust denier: he thought the murder of millions of innocents was a glorious accomplishment that the Nazis could be proud of, and should be magnified, not denied. He cast the "non-white" slur in order to shock, and he succeeded, as far as I was concerned. Why would Weiner want to embrace the ideology of so hateful a person? For being intelligent, why are Jews so damn stupid?

Well, yes and no. Pierce was certainly hateful to Jews, but he believed that the Holocaust was real but of a far lower magnitude than the “official figure”. In reading his (pretty good) “authorized biography”, it’s apparent Pierce’s animosity to Jews came from a Jewish step-grandfather his mother hated, and Pierce was very much a mama’s boy.

His own life was hardly a paragon of white racialism. He had only two children, twin sons, and was married to at least four or five other women all of which were childless marriages. He was almost certainly financially indigent until one of his disciples handed him a few hundred thousand dollars of what was certainly stolen money, and almost every one of the people he surrounded himself with proved to be completely dysfunctional when he passed on (or, in some cases, before that.)

The numerous documentaries and other filmed appearances he left behind show a man who was highly intelligent but in many ways foppish and without much good judgment.

A highly intelligent Jewish acquaintence of mine had met Pierce a couple of times ( I met him once myself) and commented to me afterward that he considered Pierce living proof that with enemies like him, Jews had little to worry about over the long haul. Jews, he said to me, are much like Mike Tyson: the only thing that can ever really beat them is themselves. And, he said, that they do more often than not.

I suspect it's just really hard to attract quality (in the sense of 'successful and organized') people to white nationalism. You mostly have highly excluded people who have nothing to lose from being outed.

I also suspect the rural demographics hinder organization. This is an advantage the far left has over the far right. Gay liberationists could congregate in NYC or SF in the fifties, but white nationalists are spread over the rural areas of many different states. Makes it a lot harder to organize until the Internet, at least.

There are a larger number of sympathizers, as any internet comment board will show, but few people with any prospects want to risk joining an organization on the SPLC's list; if you can lose your job for saying the N-word, who wants to join the Klan?

Does anyone have the energy to go through those seventy minutes and see if Jewishness ever comes up? I agree with the guy in the other thread who said that Weiner seems to bring up these issues only after someone else asks him about them first.

No way Mr. Weiner was attractive to girls in high school, which means he wouldn't have impressed guys either. He might have had girls as friends --because he seems as if he like to yak-- -but he would have been physically unappealing. His voice alone is a turn off,

It's hard to tell since he's sitting down, but he does look fairly short

He has a nasally, effeminate voice, and kind of comes across as gay, though he isn’t per wikipedia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln3dvXzjetM

Amazing! What an effeminate, ugly little man. Weird.

I can see him identifying with gays and women - obviously.

But damn, this over privileged old sissy seeing himself as an "excluded/oppressed, non-White/person of color" is as bizarre as if he said he saw himself as a tall, handsome, ex Navy SEAL/biker hell raiser who got all the hot girls in high school/college and beyond.

Wiener may mean something like what Tony Soprano said in a scene from The Sopranos. Weiner incidentally wrote and produced some for The Sopranos, although he joined the show after the episode in which the following bit appears:

Tony Soprano: C’mon, you’re Italian, you understand. Guys like me we’re brought up to think that Merigan are fuckin’ bores. The truth is the average white man is no more boring than the millionth conversation over who should have won, Marciano or Ali.

Dr. Jennifer Melfi: So am I to understand that you don’t consider yourself white?

Tony Soprano: I don’t mean white like Caucasian. I mean a white man like our friend Cusamano. Now he’s Italian, but he’s Merigan. It’s what my old man would have called a Wonder Bread wop. He eats his Sunday gravy out of a jar.

Jews are a white European ethnic group that has often been scapegoated and demonized by other white European ethnic groups. Not the only European group that has happened to, but Jews probably have had to deal with it on the most sustained basis.

Saying Jews are not white is like saying Slavs or Greeks or Sicilians are not white. It’s a product of that American obsession with white oppressors and non-white ‘victims’ so that everyone who can claim victimization must not be ‘white’. Might be news to the Irish Catholics after the English were responsible for millions of them dying, or to the 80+% of the Russian population who were essentially enslaved serfs up till the 1860s at least.

The irony of course is that saying ‘Jews are not white’ or are not ‘true Europeans’ is an anti-semitic trope, meant to deny Jewish history and role in European culture. Kind of like saying blacks are not ‘real Americans’ when they’ve been here as long as anyone but the natives.

Saying Jews are not white is like saying Slavs or Greeks or Sicilians are not white. It’s a product of that American obsession with white oppressors and non-white ‘victims’ so that everyone who can claim victimization must not be ‘white’.

Not. Slavs, Greeks, and Sicilians claim homelands in Europe. Jews claim their homeland is in Asia.

"Jews are a white European ethnic group".
That is absolutely absurd because they are not from Europe. But lets assume what you say is correct, and you no doubt support Israel, then you have big problem in explaining how a European people can make ancestral claims to land that is not in Europe ?

Jews are a white European ethnic group that has often been scapegoated and demonized by other white European ethnic groups.

It -- the scapegoating -- is the other way around. Since Jewish group identity and interests can't be mentioned, let alone subjected to moral critique, all actions of Jews are attributed to "whites", and then serve as a pretext for anti-White indoctrination that posits that Whites are uniquely and collectively guilty. Donald Sterling is a "white" racist. Ethnic nepotism in Hollywood is an example in Jewish privilege. Etc., ad nauseam.

He has a nasally, effeminate voice, and kind of comes across as gay, though he isn't per wikipedia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln3dvXzjetM

Does anyone have the energy to go through those seventy minutes and see if Jewishness ever comes up? I agree with the guy in the other thread who said that Weiner seems to bring up these issues only after someone else asks him about them first.

Well last time I looked Israel was still in Asia .
I realise quite a few Jews have some European ancestry but then Obama also has some European ancestry but considers himself- and is considered by Americans of all colours , friend and foe alike -as being ,first and foremost , of African ancestry

>>The transgender people believe that they really mentally are the other gender. So they’d say they don’t have a choice.

As far as men go, no they don't. Male transexuals know damn well that they are not the other gender. Male transexuals fall into one of two categories: 1) effeminite homosexuals who parade around as women to hopefully make themselves attractive to "real" men. 2) Heterosexuals (mainly), who feel no more like a girl inside than you or I and who get a sexual thrill from this transgender business. I do agree that those in this second category are mentally ill.

Well to be more precise they have a sexual orientation called autogynephilia, which is a sexual and or romantic desire to be a female. And like other unusual sexual orientations such as pedophilia it appears to have no cure, it can only be suppressed, moderated or indulged.

The vast majority of AGs opt for the first two options, but an increasing minority are becoming transsexuals.

The philias are a serious problem for whites and other high IQ races, and we should be thankful their strong impulse control usually stops them acting out their philiac desires.

As someone who grew up on a steady diet of Don Rickles, Shecky Greene, Buddy Hackett, Joey Bishop, Rodney Dangerfield and Soupy Sales, I’d say just add another F to “of color”, and he’d have a valid point.

Biographies of FDR tend to emphasize his disdain for poor southerners. They mention how he referred to them in private as "good for nothing bums" and that he directed New Deal spending to the South for votes and political support.

Biographies of FDR tend to emphasize his disdain for poor southerners. They mention how he referred to them in private as “good for nothing bums” and that he directed New Deal spending to the South for votes and political support.

On the other hand, his poor Yankee cousins in Maine, Vermont, and especially appleknocker New York could see right through the guy. He lost every rural county in the Northeast, save a few froggy ones on the Quebec border. By 1938– the year of the “interstate” slop decision– he lost much of the rural Midwest as well.

I sometimes wonder if Southerners enjoyed voting for him precisely because those people hated him. As they showed in 1948 and 1964, they were quite capable of rebelling, had they only wished to.

You are not a babe in these woods and you are no ignoramus; so the question I would like to see you answer, rather than using your blog comments section as the source for your next Taki Mag article on just how confusedly clueless you are about the way the world works: what do you really think are the reasons for Wiener hating WASPs?

(I already proved to you and Unz that Andrew Hacker’s WASP quote was misquoted at Wikipedia and he did write ” they are white, they are Anglo-Saxon in origin, and they are Protestants…” in his original article, and furthermore I showed you that Andrew Hackers is, in fact, Jewish)

There are massive amounts of examples of Jews stating that they are not “white” and that they are “jews”, in contradistinction.

Most jews, even the ones in israel are Atheist, if anything Judaism has always been a sort of Atheism as the Ancient Greeks and Romans recognised, the defining charateristic of jews has always been that they view themselves as a Race a part of the rest of humanity.

Notice how the Irishman looks much more like an adult born with fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) more than anything else. That's something I've noticed in a lot of these 19th century cartoons of the underclass, Irish and otherwise. FAS is a nurture rather than nature problem.

What I’d really like to see is a picture of him with a white Peruvian, a white Turk, and a white Hispanic, then we could play ‘One of these things is not like the others.’ But in a pinch, I suppose just a picture of him with George Zimmerman would do.

Well, yes and no. Pierce was certainly hateful to Jews, but he believed that the Holocaust was real but of a far lower magnitude than the "official figure". In reading his (pretty good) "authorized biography", it's apparent Pierce's animosity to Jews came from a Jewish step-grandfather his mother hated, and Pierce was very much a mama's boy.

His own life was hardly a paragon of white racialism. He had only two children, twin sons, and was married to at least four or five other women all of which were childless marriages. He was almost certainly financially indigent until one of his disciples handed him a few hundred thousand dollars of what was certainly stolen money, and almost every one of the people he surrounded himself with proved to be completely dysfunctional when he passed on (or, in some cases, before that.)

The numerous documentaries and other filmed appearances he left behind show a man who was highly intelligent but in many ways foppish and without much good judgment.

A highly intelligent Jewish acquaintence of mine had met Pierce a couple of times ( I met him once myself) and commented to me afterward that he considered Pierce living proof that with enemies like him, Jews had little to worry about over the long haul. Jews, he said to me, are much like Mike Tyson: the only thing that can ever really beat them is themselves. And, he said, that they do more often than not.

I suspect it’s just really hard to attract quality (in the sense of ‘successful and organized’) people to white nationalism. You mostly have highly excluded people who have nothing to lose from being outed.

I also suspect the rural demographics hinder organization. This is an advantage the far left has over the far right. Gay liberationists could congregate in NYC or SF in the fifties, but white nationalists are spread over the rural areas of many different states. Makes it a lot harder to organize until the Internet, at least.

There are a larger number of sympathizers, as any internet comment board will show, but few people with any prospects want to risk joining an organization on the SPLC’s list; if you can lose your job for saying the N-word, who wants to join the Klan?

Why do Jews get to decide how they are identified? White when it suits their interests. Non-white when that suits their interests. If I said I wasn’t white no one would buy it. Must be that white privilege.

He doesn’t want to be white so that’s good enough for me; the hell with him. Only our money is good enough for him otherwise we’re just a bunch of subhumans that he doesn’t want to contaminate him by being identified with. Pulling aside the curtain one can see how much of the culture has subversive origins, this person’s products, the CIA promoting degenerate modern artists, etc etc. Starve the people who hate you by not patronizing them.

Jews are a white European ethnic group that has often been scapegoated and demonized by other white European ethnic groups. Not the only European group that has happened to, but Jews probably have had to deal with it on the most sustained basis.

Saying Jews are not white is like saying Slavs or Greeks or Sicilians are not white. It's a product of that American obsession with white oppressors and non-white 'victims' so that everyone who can claim victimization must not be 'white'. Might be news to the Irish Catholics after the English were responsible for millions of them dying, or to the 80+% of the Russian population who were essentially enslaved serfs up till the 1860s at least.

The irony of course is that saying 'Jews are not white' or are not 'true Europeans' is an anti-semitic trope, meant to deny Jewish history and role in European culture. Kind of like saying blacks are not 'real Americans' when they've been here as long as anyone but the natives.

Saying Jews are not white is like saying Slavs or Greeks or Sicilians are not white. It’s a product of that American obsession with white oppressors and non-white ‘victims’ so that everyone who can claim victimization must not be ‘white’.

Not. Slavs, Greeks, and Sicilians claim homelands in Europe. Jews claim their homeland is in Asia.

“Now I wish my anecdote could just cancel out Matthew Weiner’s so he’d shut the hell up.”

Here, here!

“The irony of course is that saying ‘Jews are not white’ or are not ‘true Europeans’ is an anti-semitic trope, meant to deny Jewish history and role in European culture. Kind of like saying blacks are not ‘real Americans’ when they’ve been here as long as anyone but the natives.”

I wouldn’t go far as saying it is “anti-semitism”; more like race baiters be race baiters.

“what do you really think are the reasons for Wiener hating WASPs?”

Why do some people here hate blacks? Why do some people here hate “amerinds”? Why do some people here hate Muslims? Why do some people hate conservatives? And on and on. The answer is right in front of you. Mr. Sailer doesn’t need to write a column for the most elementary of responses.

Well to be more precise they have a sexual orientation called autogynephilia, which is a sexual and or romantic desire to be a female. And like other unusual sexual orientations such as pedophilia it appears to have no cure, it can only be suppressed, moderated or indulged.

The vast majority of AGs opt for the first two options, but an increasing minority are becoming transsexuals.

The philias are a serious problem for whites and other high IQ races, and we should be thankful their strong impulse control usually stops them acting out their philiac desires.

I never experienced any anti-Jewishness growing up. Not a bit. And I grew up in a very Goy part of the country, very far from Los Angeles. I was probably the first Jew most of my elementary school classmates had ever met.

When the lady at the doctor's office asks me what race I am, I answer in a steady, clear voice and a smile on my face that I'm white.

Now I wish my anecdote could just cancel out Matthew Weiner's so he'd shut the hell up.

Besides, I wouldn't be caught dead riding a subway. I'm an American, and Americans drive cars or trucks. But I do have to admit, if I was forced to ride a subway I'd sure as hell be carrying a gun like our curly-haired friend in that story.

What do you mean by this? I haven't seen the show. Is it conservative or something?

Not exactly, but just because it’s beloved by upwardly mobile white progressives doesn’t mean it’s unabashed leftist propaganda, even if its creator says so. (It’s a lot like The Wire in that respect). People talk about it like it’s Crash, which won an Oscar for depicting a world where everybody is openly and loudly racist all the time, but the “-isms” of Mad Men are always highly contextualized, and can’t be extricated from specific personal matters in the plot. They also often turn out to be the opposite of what you’ve been trained to expect:

- The only person who gets fired for not putting out is a man.
- Pete Campbell is probably the most privileged (in the legacy blue-blood sense) member of the firm, and, at least in the early episodes, the most sociopathic. He’s also the only person ever to call somebody a racist as a personal attack.
- The black secretary, Dawn, falsifies a timecard, but she can’t be fired because it will hurt the firm’s diversity numbers. She gets moved from her existing position to the front desk, but once Bert notices her there, he says she must be moved because clients visiting the firm can’t all be expected to be as enlightened as SCDP is. As a result, she is promoted to head of personnel (the birth of the Black HR Lady?). It’s a great microcosmic re-enactment of racial hot-potatoism, how things that happen to blacks don’t have much to do with blacks per se but are the downstream effects of conflicts between white people.

Oh, but one time Roger Sterling sang a song in blackface. Everybody agrees that’s supposed to be a brilliant multi-layered examination of racism, because blackface.

In the book A Renegade History of America, the author has a section on the debate over the racial status of Jews in late 19th and early 20th century America. In the 19th century, minstrel shows were almost exclusively performed by Jews and Irish to mock WASP culture, not blacks, because Jews and Irish were still considered “black” by the WASP elite.

By the 1920′s Jewish leaders had successfully argued that Jews were not African in anyway and by WW2 the government counted Jews as white. As with every other ethnic group except blacks, WW2 swung open the door to white America for Jews. They even gave up playing professional basketball at this time. No kidding.

Biographies of FDR tend to emphasize his disdain for poor southerners. They mention how he referred to them in private as "good for nothing bums" and that he directed New Deal spending to the South for votes and political support.

“Biographies of FDR tend to emphasize his disdain for poor southerners.”

Not the ones I read. My favorite, “First Class Tempermant” by Christopher Ward. FDR’s 12 years in Warm Springs brought him in touch with the locals, whom he grew to like. Indeed, his crippled condition made him much more empathetic for the less favored of his countrymen. Not that is was not a politician always casting for votes.

In order to be canonized and made safe for the vibrant crowd, FDR and Elanor had to have all the dark spots removed from their past. Same thing for Lincoln. I am sure the Roosevelt's had much more in common with white southerners than some of the other more diverse elements within their party.

Weiner reminds me a bit of another Gentleman's C scion of a high achiever, George W. Bush. Bush had a chip on his shoulder about Eastern Liberal Elites, but he kept going to Yale and Harvard.

Bush running as an alternative to eastern elites is just one more but of evidence that American voters aren’t paying much attention. (See also: McCain running as an outsider maverick, Gore running as an intellectual.)

Historically Jews have expressed sympathy and fellow-feeling towards White and Christian gentiles when they were under pressure from Muslims but those cases are few and far between. I guess if Los Angeles and New York start getting the same ratio of Muslims, Jews and White Christians that we saw in Algiers during French rule, and those cities descend into similar levels of violence, then we can expect to see Cupid’s arrow fly and Jewish love for non-Muslims will blossom. Otherwise don’t bet on it.

The far more likely future is that the Muslims will remain a billion strong in their faith and the Jews and others of the West will abolish themselves in favour of a post-national, post-ethnic blob. Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams is already on his way there:
That’s Gerry with a celebrity Irish tranny called Panti and the Minister of Justice, Frances Fitzgerald celebrating the referendum result in Ireland.

this whole anti-jew thing is yet another hilarious and sad aspect of the Dissident Right. So many commentators on these Dissident Right sites think that Jews are not white.

Pay attention to this:
Jews. Are. White.

This whole not-paying-attention thing is another hilarious aspect of you.

Pay attention to this:

Many Jews do not think of themselves as white, and that’s nobody’s fault but theirs.

That’s where the whole “Jews are not white” thing comes from. I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned this every time I unpacked the “Jews are not white” thing.

And, importantly, almost nobody (except some blacks) holds Jews to being white if Jews don’t want to be held to being white. They get away with the Mike Wallace maneuver, if they want to.

If you can get away with opting out of whiteness when it suits you, you’re not really white.

Then there’s the fact of different definitions of white. If your definition is “Caucasoid” or “Caucasian,” then yes, many or most Jews are racially white (Sammy Davis is not white, but he was a Jew; Ethiopian Jews are not white, but they’re Jews). If your definition is “European,” then no, Jews aren’t white, because they have substantial non-European ancestry.

Long ago, Jews wanted to be part of the Christian world but also to remain apart from it.

They wanted more freedoms and privileges among Christians… but as Jews.
Jews could have made an honest attempt at conversion and assimilation, but most did not.

Jews want to be accepted by white elites as fellow whites but then fear that very thing since they will lose their distinct sense of Jewishness.

This outsiderness is partly self-pitying and associated with victim-hood(of a perceived inferior people by the ruling majority) but it is also tribally superiorist because Jewish pride is rooted in the otherness of Chosenness. So, outsiderness among Jews has largely been self-imposed. And Jewish identity has been exclusive in that Jews don’t want non-Jews to become Jews. Jewish identity is for those with Jewish blood.

So, antisemitism and Jewish identity actually had one thing in common. They based Jewishness on blood.
Prior to antisemitism, Jews could convert and become good Christians(if sincere in conversion).
But with the rise of antisemitism, even a converted and assimilated Jews was seen as a Jew.
But this blood-centered view was shared by Jews. A convert to Judaism wasn’t a real Jew since his or her blood wasn’t really Jewish. And even when Jews joined white or Christian society, they were still Jews-in-the-closet because they were still Jewish by blood.

So, exclusivity based on blood is a big factor in Jewish identity, and Jews want to keep it that way. But if Jews admitted the proactive nature of this exclusivity, they could be accused of racial discrimination. So, they explain their apartness or outsiderness purely in reactive terms.
So, Jews say they are ‘different’ and on the outside because the wasps won’t accept them.

If all white communities open up to Jews, Jews will invoke something in the past to keep maintaining their separate identities.

If every wasp country club opened up to Jews, Jews will likely fund one wasp guy to maintain a wasp-only country club to make Jews feel that they are still excluded.

It’s like Harvard where Jews run everything and have access to everything except maybe one wasp fraternity, and that is used as an example of how Jews are on the outside.
Jewish outsiderness(in the realm of power) has become symbolic. (Maybe Jews can say the Fed is anti-Jewish because the janitors there are gentiles who sit among themselves eating ham sandwiches in the cafeteria without the company of Jews who are ‘forced’ to dine with other Jews on gourmet food in the executive lounge.)

It’s like black victimization has become symbolic. Most of the violence is black on white, so blacks have to rely on the symbolism of white violence–like KKK sightings and ‘hate hoaxes everywhere–to perpetuate the myth that blacks are still attacked by whites.

Since the only kind of white-on-black violence left is ‘police brutality’, it does create the impression that the ‘system’ is out to get blacks, even though police usually react to bad black behavior. Black thug violence is proactive, police violence is reactive. But the symbolic ‘talk’ has created the impression that cops and ‘white hispanics’ are on the prowl for black kids.

Jewish policy in regard to whites is for whites to fully and totally accept and embrace Jews while Jews fully and totally maintain their separateness of identity.
But Jews want to pretend that they are forced to be separate by snobby white privilege when their exclusivity is self-imposed and goes out of its way to exclude others.

Instead of focusing on Weiner, why not focus on Matt Drudge, an even more important media Jew. Drudge’s headlines are actually suggestive of a worldview not too dissimilar to Sailer’s. His is probably the most conservative, influential, mainstream media outlet in the US if not the world.

"Biographies of FDR tend to emphasize his disdain for poor southerners."

Not the ones I read. My favorite, "First Class Tempermant" by Christopher Ward. FDR's 12 years in Warm Springs brought him in touch with the locals, whom he grew to like. Indeed, his crippled condition made him much more empathetic for the less favored of his countrymen. Not that is was not a politician always casting for votes.

He could feel sorry for the poor in general and still hold prejudices about certain groups of poor people–as a patrician Northerner, some degree of the old Civil War prejudices might be expected.

I admire FDR (one of the last liberals to actually do something for the common man), but he was human.

He has a nasally, effeminate voice, and kind of comes across as gay, though he isn't per wikipedia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln3dvXzjetM

Just watched the video–

I agree with your assessment, Anon.

No way Mr. Weiner was attractive to girls in high school, which means he wouldn’t have impressed guys either. He might have had girls as friends –because he seems as if he like to yak– -but he would have been physically unappealing. His voice alone is a turn off,

It’s hard to tell since he’s sitting down, but he does look fairly short

No way Mr. Weiner was attractive to girls in high school, which means he wouldn't have impressed guys either. He might have had girls as friends --because he seems as if he like to yak-- -but he would have been physically unappealing. His voice alone is a turn off,

It's hard to tell since he's sitting down, but he does look fairly short

That posted photo above indicates Weiner is the same height as or a smidgen taller than George Lucas.

Weiner’s using the academically hot definition of “Whiteness,” in which Whiteness equals normality. It’s been pretty trendy for a while now.Cf things like How The Irish Became White, etc. Heck, I had an Americanist colleague once tell me, in all seriousness, that the Irish Catholics didn’t really become White until JFK was inaugurated.Until then, they were only White with an asterisk.

I suppose this is the Irish’s way of rolling the fact that they were looked down upon (for their drunkenness and general not-shaping-up) by other whites into the Civil Rights Skruggle.

but then, you don’t see them going to huge lengths to exclude, say, Armenians.

A lot of WNs say Armenians aren’t white. A lot of WNs say Jews are.

Well, yes and no.

A lot of the reasons they put those ads out is because the outmarriage rate is like 50% and they’re afraid they’ll disappear.

Meanwhile, none of the other white ethnicities (French, English, Swiss, Polish, etc.) even keep track of their “outmarriage” rates or show any concern at all that they’ll disappear, thus confirming megaphonics’ statement about Jewish ethnocentrism. Oh, and the outmarriage rate the Jews complain about is lower than for the other white ethnicities.

Compare it to e.g. Joss Whedon’s feminist schlock that uses e.g. what liberals refer to as “numinous negro” main characters, like Shepherd Book.

On the other hand, Whedon freely used prominent black villains in his Firefly stories (the assassins who came for River were both black and spent a lot of time on screen being villainous and black, which is very unusual in the entertainment biz).

But it is kind of funny that liberal Jews and Nazis agree on something…extremes meet?

Or, again, maybe it’s just WNs taking Jews at their word? I don’t see much pushback or indignation from Jews to counter Mike Wallace/Matt Weiner/the anonymous Feldstone parent.

Reasonable to assume that the Jews in America could eventually direct the government to classify themselves racially as Jewish -- it's only a matter of at what point does it become "good for the Jews" to do so. Obviously.

The USA has never had a Middle Eastern or Semitic racial category because of Jewish concerns. This leads to Saudis, Iraqis et al coming here and absurdly being classified as white. It also has led to Jews taking huge numbers of white spots in any affirmative action context.

“Semitic” refers to language. “Jew” to religion, or centuries of guilt and persecution, i.e. religion.

Jesus was a Jew who spoke a Semitic language, and he lived at the same latitude as Babylon. I guess you think Jesus was non-white.

Besides, I wouldn’t be caught dead riding a subway. I’m an American, and Americans drive cars or trucks. But I do have to admit, if I was forced to ride a subway I’d sure as hell be carrying a gun like our curly-haired friend in that story.

Besides, I wouldn’t be caught dead riding a subway. I’m an American, and Americans drive cars or trucks.

The French invented the automobile, and Germans the superhighway, but it was Americans who gave the world the streetcar. In Richmond, Va, to be exact.

Boston and New York were three [sic] of the world's earliest subway systems. Most of the world's first undergrounds were private enterprises. (August Belmont even had his own private subway car. Hey, that was a perk of any railroad president.)

Highways, in contrast, are downright communist. The interstate going through my neighborhood was built mostly on stolen land. The locals get their revenge with a 45mph limit.

I think the first time I heard Jews described as non-white was in a radio broadcast by William Luther Pierce, who was one of the nastiest anti-semites who ever lived. He was the furthest thing from a holocaust denier: he thought the murder of millions of innocents was a glorious accomplishment that the Nazis could be proud of, and should be magnified, not denied. He cast the "non-white" slur in order to shock, and he succeeded, as far as I was concerned. Why would Weiner want to embrace the ideology of so hateful a person? For being intelligent, why are Jews so damn stupid?

Good question. A Jewish neurological surgeon in San Diego believes we should take in masses of African muslim immigrants who (one could guess) would love to see his grandchildren violently dead? why? The surgeon is clearly extremely intelligent and professionally competent. But I see very wealthy Unitarians, Lutherans, and high IQ high wealth liberals of a variety of religions, advocating exactly the same positions. I would think that any wealthy successful group would be more naturally conservative so as to conserve the society in which they had accrued such tremendous advantages. But this is not the case in the US and not just for Jews.

Naah, that one's easy. They're removed from the consequences of low-income immigration, like crime in working-class areas, and enjoy having cheap servants. It makes them feel good that they're giving these people a refuge from their nasty homelands.

A lot of this is really a class issue: the liberal NYT has lots of angry commenters on every immigration and trade article talking about how they're dragging down the poor.

So Weiner simultaneously loathes “white” people: “It is institutional, and it is villainous, and it is a separation”, and desperately wants their approval: “I love this idea of people like Don, who is white, looking at us and seeing us as heroes.”

If he were talking about a person rather than groups of people, we would say he had daddy issues.

You are not a babe in these woods and you are no ignoramus; so the question I would like to see you answer, rather than using your blog comments section as the source for your next Taki Mag article on just how confusedly clueless you are about the way the world works: what do you really think are the reasons for Wiener hating WASPs?

(I already proved to you and Unz that Andrew Hacker's WASP quote was misquoted at Wikipedia and he did write " they are white, they are Anglo-Saxon in origin, and they are Protestants..." in his original article, and furthermore I showed you that Andrew Hackers is, in fact, Jewish)

There are massive amounts of examples of Jews stating that they are not "white" and that they are "jews", in contradistinction.

Please, give us your genuine thoughts on the subject.

Yours Sincerely,

In those “massive amounts of examples”, Jews don’t tend to mean ‘white’ in some simple biological sense. What they mean is ‘white’ in a sense that excludes or ignores Jewish identity.

"Biographies of FDR tend to emphasize his disdain for poor southerners."

Not the ones I read. My favorite, "First Class Tempermant" by Christopher Ward. FDR's 12 years in Warm Springs brought him in touch with the locals, whom he grew to like. Indeed, his crippled condition made him much more empathetic for the less favored of his countrymen. Not that is was not a politician always casting for votes.

In order to be canonized and made safe for the vibrant crowd, FDR and Elanor had to have all the dark spots removed from their past. Same thing for Lincoln. I am sure the Roosevelt’s had much more in common with white southerners than some of the other more diverse elements within their party.

Not exactly, but just because it's beloved by upwardly mobile white progressives doesn't mean it's unabashed leftist propaganda, even if its creator says so. (It's a lot like The Wire in that respect). People talk about it like it's Crash, which won an Oscar for depicting a world where everybody is openly and loudly racist all the time, but the "-isms" of Mad Men are always highly contextualized, and can't be extricated from specific personal matters in the plot. They also often turn out to be the opposite of what you've been trained to expect:

- The only person who gets fired for not putting out is a man.
- Pete Campbell is probably the most privileged (in the legacy blue-blood sense) member of the firm, and, at least in the early episodes, the most sociopathic. He's also the only person ever to call somebody a racist as a personal attack.
- The black secretary, Dawn, falsifies a timecard, but she can't be fired because it will hurt the firm's diversity numbers. She gets moved from her existing position to the front desk, but once Bert notices her there, he says she must be moved because clients visiting the firm can't all be expected to be as enlightened as SCDP is. As a result, she is promoted to head of personnel (the birth of the Black HR Lady?). It's a great microcosmic re-enactment of racial hot-potatoism, how things that happen to blacks don't have much to do with blacks per se but are the downstream effects of conflicts between white people.

Oh, but one time Roger Sterling sang a song in blackface. Everybody agrees that's supposed to be a brilliant multi-layered examination of racism, because blackface.

That’s why it strikes me as being worse than “unabashed leftist propaganda”. Its revisionism is subtle and insidious, with enough realism to lull people

That was just a way of disparaging people. Obviously "n*gg*r" was a major slur used against blacks, but it was often modified and used to disparage non-blacks, including whites. For example, sometimes the Irish were disparaged as "Irish n*gg*rs" or "potato n*gg*rs". That didn't mean the people using those terms thought that the Irish were actually black or non-white.

I don’t know if my family was atypical but we very much identified with being white. Being blue eyed with no few Jewish physical features (other than being short and bald I suppose) others think of me as white not Jewish. Since there are few Jews where I live they usually don’t make a connection with my last name, I’m just some white guy to them which is fine with me.

He is preparing Christian Zionists to still accept the Jews as the chosen people – which will shortly be mostly black/Asian/Jewish. It will be fascinating to watch this match between white Christians and black/Asian- Jews

Today I heard a classic example of how “conservatives” become leftists the second Jews come up. Rush was making the argument that Republican pols should reject the premise of all these “knowing what we know now, do you think invading Iraq in 2003 was a mistake?” questions, reject the notion that Iraq was an unmitigated disaster. A caller rightly pointed out that the Neocons pushed us into the war, and they’ve pushed Obama into Libya, are pushing him back into Iraq, etc. Rush played the “antisemitism” card instantly, saying neocon was a code word for Jew, and that the caller was saying that the Jews got us into the Iraq war. Meaning, noticing Jews and their behavior is forbidden. Because the neocons obviously were and are heavily Jewish, and the neocons did form the vanguard of pro-Iraq-war advocacy. They even went so far as to cook up their own intelligence bureaucracy inside the federal gov’t to support the 2003 invasion, because the stuff they were getting from real agencies wasn’t sexy enough.

Rush likes to talk about low-information voters and how they’ll buy anything the media says, but he was certainly depending on his own sort of low-information listeners to sell that pile of dog poop. This is a classic leftist tactic: point and sputter “dass rrrraciss!”

(Quite an honour to you Steve to have the great Darbyshire reading and commenting on your pieces.)

While nowadays most people put European jews in the "white" category Neonazis and white nationalist decidedly do not.

This is probably not a original sentiment but must have some older origin because you see references to Jews' otherness elsewhere.

There's a line in the Cotton Club, a 1984 movie directed and written by Coppola in which one character, an Irish mobster says to a Jewish mobster; " a "Jew is just a n*gg*r turned inside out."

If you google this phrase with the taboo word spelt out it turns out to have been a common turn of phrase up to the 60's and earlier.

That was just a way of disparaging people. Obviously “n*gg*r” was a major slur used against blacks, but it was often modified and used to disparage non-blacks, including whites. For example, sometimes the Irish were disparaged as “Irish n*gg*rs” or “potato n*gg*rs”. That didn’t mean the people using those terms thought that the Irish were actually black or non-white.

this whole anti-jew thing is yet another hilarious and sad aspect of the Dissident Right. So many commentators on these Dissident Right sites think that Jews are not white.

Pay attention to this:
Jews. Are. White.

“Jews. Are. White.”

Even the ones from Ethiopia ? If you consider jews white then you will have to also label Turks and Arabs white as well. Jews originated from non white lands, despite the occasional jew with blue eyes and blonde hair (same with Turks and Arabs), they are mostly swarthy middle eastern in appearance and I don’t consider that white.

Weiner and most American Jews are Ashkenazi Jews. A recent full genome sequencing study showed that Ashkenazi Jews are approximately half-southern European and half-Middle Eastern. But Middle Eastern populations themselves have changed over the past two thousand years since the ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews left. Most saliently, Muslim Middle Easterners have accumulated sub-Saharan admixture at levels much higher than is found in Christian Middle Easterners or Mizrahi Jews. In short, the Middle East was "whiter" two thousand years ago than it is now.

Instead of focusing on Weiner, why not focus on Matt Drudge, an even more important media Jew. Drudge’s headlines are actually suggestive of a worldview not too dissimilar to Sailer’s. His is probably the most conservative, influential, mainstream media outlet in the US if not the world.

I did just that the other day in one of the Weiner threads, but Steve didn’t like it. I pointed out that Drudge thinks someone laying bacon on a Jewish monument is national news. This isn’t exceptional, either, he consistently elevates these non-stories to national attention.

Meanwhile, all I have to do is turn on my TV to watch Jews laying bacon all over America and American history.

Jesus was a Jew who spoke a Semitic language, and he lived at the same latitude as Babylon. I guess you think Jesus was non-white.

Jesus was probably about as white as the peoples of neighboring populations like Syrians, Arabs, what have you. Do you call Arabs white?

P.S., met many Jews named after Jesus lately? I shouldn’t ask – I wouldn’t be surprised to see a South American descendent of cryptos named Jesus.

I wonder how often Jesus Christ shows up in lists of famous Jews. Only time I see people mentioning his Jewishness is when they’re addressing unreconstructed whites, or Christians trying to boost the appeal of their religion in the Jewish Century.

Jesus was probably about as white as the peoples of neighboring populations like Syrians, Arabs, what have you. Do you call Arabs white?

The Middle East at the time of Jesus was a lot lighter than today. Greg Cochran.

Yet [Ashkenazi] seem paler than you would expect as a 50-50 mix of Italians and Middle Easterners. First thing is that the Middle East isn’t what it used to be – more South Arabian and African ancestry...

Some Mizrahi Jews like this woman look lighter than a lot of Italians and Greeks, despite spending the last 2000 years living amongst an influx of South Arabian and African ancestry. So it seems far from clear that Jesus wasn't as White as Southern Europeans.

Good question. A Jewish neurological surgeon in San Diego believes we should take in masses of African muslim immigrants who (one could guess) would love to see his grandchildren violently dead? why? The surgeon is clearly extremely intelligent and professionally competent. But I see very wealthy Unitarians, Lutherans, and high IQ high wealth liberals of a variety of religions, advocating exactly the same positions. I would think that any wealthy successful group would be more naturally conservative so as to conserve the society in which they had accrued such tremendous advantages. But this is not the case in the US and not just for Jews.

Naah, that one’s easy. They’re removed from the consequences of low-income immigration, like crime in working-class areas, and enjoy having cheap servants. It makes them feel good that they’re giving these people a refuge from their nasty homelands.

A lot of this is really a class issue: the liberal NYT has lots of angry commenters on every immigration and trade article talking about how they’re dragging down the poor.

True, but there's also a Jewish angle, namely, Jews are more pro-immigration even when they themselves are not totally removed from the consequences of it, and elite gentile whites are on average less pro-immigration (at the very least they spend less money buying politicians to promote it, in fact, they spend less money on average on any kind of political activism) than are elite Jews. Jewish money does skew elections contributions heavily in favor of immigration.

I cannot think of a both intelligent and honest way of stopping the discussion on this Jewish angle.

I also think the inability of Jews to see themselves as they might appear to disinterested outsiders might do them tremendous harm in the long run. For example does it serve Jewish interests that ethnically conscious Jews assist in the suicide of the West? Whether they are a necessary condition for that suicide or not, assisting it when it's probably not in the best interests of the Jewish tribe, well, at least it's not a very smart thing to do.

Jews are a white European ethnic group that has often been scapegoated and demonized by other white European ethnic groups. Not the only European group that has happened to, but Jews probably have had to deal with it on the most sustained basis.

Saying Jews are not white is like saying Slavs or Greeks or Sicilians are not white. It's a product of that American obsession with white oppressors and non-white 'victims' so that everyone who can claim victimization must not be 'white'. Might be news to the Irish Catholics after the English were responsible for millions of them dying, or to the 80+% of the Russian population who were essentially enslaved serfs up till the 1860s at least.

The irony of course is that saying 'Jews are not white' or are not 'true Europeans' is an anti-semitic trope, meant to deny Jewish history and role in European culture. Kind of like saying blacks are not 'real Americans' when they've been here as long as anyone but the natives.

“Jews are a white European ethnic group”.
That is absolutely absurd because they are not from Europe. But lets assume what you say is correct, and you no doubt support Israel, then you have big problem in explaining how a European people can make ancestral claims to land that is not in Europe ?

Weiner’s using the academically hot definition of “Whiteness,” in which Whiteness equals normality. It’s been pretty trendy for a while now.Cf things like How The Irish Became White, etc. Heck, I had an Americanist colleague once tell me, in all seriousness, that the Irish Catholics didn’t really become White until JFK was inaugurated.Until then, they were only White with an asterisk.

I suppose this is the Irish's way of rolling the fact that they were looked down upon (for their drunkenness and general not-shaping-up) by other whites into the Civil Rights Skruggle.

but then, you don’t see them going to huge lengths to exclude, say, Armenians.

A lot of WNs say Armenians aren't white. A lot of WNs say Jews are.

Well, yes and no.

A lot of the reasons they put those ads out is because the outmarriage rate is like 50% and they’re afraid they’ll disappear.

Meanwhile, none of the other white ethnicities (French, English, Swiss, Polish, etc.) even keep track of their "outmarriage" rates or show any concern at all that they'll disappear, thus confirming megaphonics' statement about Jewish ethnocentrism. Oh, and the outmarriage rate the Jews complain about is lower than for the other white ethnicities.

Compare it to e.g. Joss Whedon’s feminist schlock that uses e.g. what liberals refer to as “numinous negro” main characters, like Shepherd Book.

On the other hand, Whedon freely used prominent black villains in his Firefly stories (the assassins who came for River were both black and spent a lot of time on screen being villainous and black, which is very unusual in the entertainment biz).

But it is kind of funny that liberal Jews and Nazis agree on something…extremes meet?

Or, again, maybe it's just WNs taking Jews at their word? I don't see much pushback or indignation from Jews to counter Mike Wallace/Matt Weiner/the anonymous Feldstone parent.

The existence of France, England, Switzerland, or Poland are not presently threatened (though Poland was absorbed quite a few times).

As Steve has mentioned before, Ultra orthodox Jews act as a demographic reserve for Jews. The town of Kiryas Joel, outside NYC, is an example. Israel is also fairly well protected, and I don't see it getting blown to smithereens any time soon.
Meanwhile France, England, and Switzerland are all experiencing demographic change, which could mean the unique cultures that developed in those places be replaced by another. Oddly enough, it appears Polish culture is the most protected, even though it has, as you said, been absorbed by its neighbours at various times.

“I don’t like sweeping generalizations about the show, but if you want to say it’s the story of how we all feel like outsiders, absolutely,”

Exactly. More or less everyone feels like an outsider. Including whites. Every Southerner, Scots Irish, Catholic, Eastern European, Non English speaking Northern European. Until the 1940's, Italians were considered very non white.

I liked the show. Wiener's blather? Yea ... Idiocy. And, this wasn't a one man project. As long as he didn't utterly ruin it, he had the resources to put out a great product.

The only true insider was Pete Campbell. "His mother Dorothy "Dot" Campbell nee' Dykeman is descended from an old-money family whose riches date back to before the Revolution, and among her ancestors was a farmer with Isaac Roosevelt."

Pete's blue blooded ancestors managed to instill a sense of entitlement and expensive tastes, but squandered his inheritance. In order to retain/regain his status of insider, he was the most obnoxious conniving suck up on the show.

Rachel Mencken? She was hot. Most of the other of Don's women were pathetic. And Bobbie Barrett? If she wasn't Jewish, what was she? Why would Don bother? And Sylvia Rosen. Yawn. She won't go along with Don's BDSM fantasy.

One surprising thing is that Don seemed to go for women his own age or even older on occasion. Grown kids not rate.

“I don’t like sweeping generalizations about the show, but if you want to say it’s the story of how we all feel like outsiders, absolutely,”

This is what happen when you have a non-homogenous population and steady immigration: a lot of people who feel alienated from the country they live in.

I went to high school with a member of a Korean family who later achieved great success and was invited back to speak at the school. In his talk, he mentioned how he always felt out of place because there were so few Koreans in America at the time. His family came here as political refugees, but the kids felt alienated because they were not in a country full of people like themselves. So naturally they all grew up to be major-league leftists.

"His family came here as political refugees, but the kids felt alienated because they were not in a country full of people like themselves."

More likely, he picked up those attitudes in the fancy college he attended.
If you're a non-white in college and say you have no problem with whites and love America, white academics don't like you.
White academics see themselves as progressive radicals waging war on bigoted America. They see themselves as noble defenders of the poor minorities in a hostile white America full of white privilege and white hate.

So, if you're non-white and say most white Americans are good people and you love the US, white academics will see you as low grade. To win the approval of white academic elites, you have to show that you are filled with angst and alienation. Put down white America to score points with white elites.

I took a class on Asian subject taught by a Jewish professor. She used literature and lectures that specifically made Asian kids in class identify with non-whites and hate whites. Generally, Jews lead, Asians follow. So, whatever Jewish professors teach, Asian students follow.

One difference between Asians and non-Asian minorities is this. Blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics only take on victim mentality and hardly ever criticize their own kind. East Asians take on victim mentality in relation to whites but take on guilt-mentality in regards to other non-whites.
This is partly because Asians have done better than other minorities. It is also because they try to hard to join the white community. Asians try to be white but they've been taught to see themselves as victims of whites. But since they are not victims of whites and do well in white society, they feel as traitors to the non-white cause. So, they are filled with ersatz white guilt.

Well, it depends on how you define white. The Nazis would occasionally call an Aryan they didn't like a 'white Jew'. A lot of WNs exclude Jews as white because their roots trace back to Asia rather than Europe...but then, you don't see them going to huge lengths to exclude, say, Armenians.

I think, in modern America, the definition most people use is 'descended from enough people from Europe or close to it that your skin is some shade of pink'. From this point of view Weiner is white. But, of course, white isn't cool, so he's trying to claim a little oppressed-person cred.

Apparently my previous statements were mistaken and lots of people actually believe this:

Genetically speaking, Jews are an outlier group in Europe, but they also don’t cluster well with Middle Easterners. They are a group in between the two, and are in many respects closer to Europeans than to Middle Easterners. In many respects (because of both drift and differential selection) they are quite a bit different from both. Berlusconi or Putin are closer related to me than Netanyahu, but Netanyahu is closer related to me than King Abdullah of Jordan.

In a concentric circle of loyalty, I’d be more loyal to Italians, Poles or Swedes than to Jews, but more loyal to Jews than to Iraqi Arabs. I’d be roughly as loyal to Jews as to Turks maybe. Of course, real life doesn’t work that way. People’s family loyalties are somewhat arbitrary. I’m equally related to all cousins (actually, that’s not exactly true because of how genetic inheritance works), but some of my cousins are closer to me than others. I have a cousin with whom I rarely if ever talked to in my life, whereas with some of my cousins I talk to at least once every few months, even though we live in different countries. Why should we expect nationalism or racialism (which is basically a kind of super-extended familism) to be any different?

I also don’t think it helps Jews in the eyes of racially conscious whites if they are white. If they are white, than they are also majority traitors. All of their ethnic organizations are traitors to the white cause. I haven’t even seen a Jewish organization anywhere that didn’t promote multiculturalism. Pro-Israel nationalist activism is correlated with pro-immigration activism. Politically active billionaires who donate to Israeli causes also donate to pro-immigration causes. In other words, for Jews, being racially conscious rarely leads to anti-immigrationism, and most politically active Jews are both nationalists (as Jews) and pro-immigration (in America and Europe, but only pro-Jewish immigration in Israel). If I view them as just belonging to a different race and being loyal to that different race, then I could at least accept it. If I view them as belonging to the very same race as I do, then they are traitors. In most people’s eyes, being a traitor is worse than being a member of another tribe.

Also, regardless of what one thinks of Jews, whether enemies or traitors (the large majority of them, at any rate), on the personal level many could be pleasant acquaintances. Some of them are commenting here (although they should spend less of their energies trying to persuade us that Jews are not so bad, after all, and more of their energies trying to persuade their fellow Jews that they should change their ways – believe me, if Jews changed their behavior, we’d notice), and of course it would be great if for some reason they suddenly turned around. I still would think we cannot just forget who killed who, because it’s an important question. I agree with Kevin MacDonald that Jews were a necessary but not sufficient condition for the current disaster, and I’d think it warrants at least a discussion. I wouldn’t fully be happy if Jews turned around, led us back from the edge of the precipice, and then we would forget all that was bad. We should discuss what happened lest it gets repeated.

Actually, I try in person, quite a bit, but I have very little influence in real life. I could spend my whole life advocating against, say, immigration and still not make as much of a splash as Sheldon Adelson.

It's like the honest black guy--are you really going to be able to get your ghetto cousins to stop banging and slanging?

There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined “moral community” and only when the “morally worthless” are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.

And don’t blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century. With or without Jews, we would still be facing the dilemma that is facing us now.

“I don’t like sweeping generalizations about the show, but if you want to say it’s the story of how we all feel like outsiders, absolutely,”

This is what happen when you have a non-homogenous population and steady immigration: a lot of people who feel alienated from the country they live in.

I went to high school with a member of a Korean family who later achieved great success and was invited back to speak at the school. In his talk, he mentioned how he always felt out of place because there were so few Koreans in America at the time. His family came here as political refugees, but the kids felt alienated because they were not in a country full of people like themselves. So naturally they all grew up to be major-league leftists.

“His family came here as political refugees, but the kids felt alienated because they were not in a country full of people like themselves.”

More likely, he picked up those attitudes in the fancy college he attended.
If you’re a non-white in college and say you have no problem with whites and love America, white academics don’t like you.
White academics see themselves as progressive radicals waging war on bigoted America. They see themselves as noble defenders of the poor minorities in a hostile white America full of white privilege and white hate.

So, if you’re non-white and say most white Americans are good people and you love the US, white academics will see you as low grade. To win the approval of white academic elites, you have to show that you are filled with angst and alienation. Put down white America to score points with white elites.

I took a class on Asian subject taught by a Jewish professor. She used literature and lectures that specifically made Asian kids in class identify with non-whites and hate whites. Generally, Jews lead, Asians follow. So, whatever Jewish professors teach, Asian students follow.

One difference between Asians and non-Asian minorities is this. Blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics only take on victim mentality and hardly ever criticize their own kind. East Asians take on victim mentality in relation to whites but take on guilt-mentality in regards to other non-whites.
This is partly because Asians have done better than other minorities. It is also because they try to hard to join the white community. Asians try to be white but they’ve been taught to see themselves as victims of whites. But since they are not victims of whites and do well in white society, they feel as traitors to the non-white cause. So, they are filled with ersatz white guilt.

Weiner's using the academically hot definition of "Whiteness," in which Whiteness equals normality. It's been pretty trendy for a while now.Cf things like How The Irish Became White, etc. Heck, I had an Americanist colleague once tell me, in all seriousness, that the Irish Catholics didn't really become White until JFK was inaugurated.Until then, they were only White with an asterisk.

So where did the term “irish n-word” come from? I grew up on the west coast, so we didn’t really have ethnic Irish running around. None that I was aware of, anyway. However, when I moved, for a short time, to the east coast, I heard that term on occasion, and I wondered about it’s derivation.

Admittedly, when I was on the east coast, I did meet some american irishmen who were quite the piece of work. Often dumb and mean, and they could supercharge it with alcohol. Later, I met a number of Irishmen in Ireland, and found them to be quite a bit different from the Americanized version. Irish from Ireland weren’t generally like that. Nice, easy-going, compassionate, and many read books.

Anybody with any ideas of what that’s all about?
Why do a noticeable number of americanized full-blooded Irish seem riddled with pathologies, while Irish from Ireland generally aren’t?

this whole anti-jew thing is yet another hilarious and sad aspect of the Dissident Right. So many commentators on these Dissident Right sites think that Jews are not white.

Pay attention to this:
Jews. Are. White.

I heard a jewish colleague of mine say to two black colleagues, right in front of me, “We don’t consider ourselves white.” So, this feeling exists, and this woman felt sufficiently confident in expressing it publicly in front of me, not jewish, and two black women. So I know that that feeling exists among at least some jews. How many, I do not know. P.S. I’m no more “anti-Jewish” than I am anti-eskimo.

Naah, that one's easy. They're removed from the consequences of low-income immigration, like crime in working-class areas, and enjoy having cheap servants. It makes them feel good that they're giving these people a refuge from their nasty homelands.

A lot of this is really a class issue: the liberal NYT has lots of angry commenters on every immigration and trade article talking about how they're dragging down the poor.

True, but there’s also a Jewish angle, namely, Jews are more pro-immigration even when they themselves are not totally removed from the consequences of it, and elite gentile whites are on average less pro-immigration (at the very least they spend less money buying politicians to promote it, in fact, they spend less money on average on any kind of political activism) than are elite Jews. Jewish money does skew elections contributions heavily in favor of immigration.

I cannot think of a both intelligent and honest way of stopping the discussion on this Jewish angle.

I also think the inability of Jews to see themselves as they might appear to disinterested outsiders might do them tremendous harm in the long run. For example does it serve Jewish interests that ethnically conscious Jews assist in the suicide of the West? Whether they are a necessary condition for that suicide or not, assisting it when it’s probably not in the best interests of the Jewish tribe, well, at least it’s not a very smart thing to do.

I've noticed this about some Jews. Very intelligent and capable - but an odd, almost childlike naiveté - their imagination is severely stunted when it comes to imagining threats coming from people other than Europeans.

I wonder if the high IQ gets cancelled out in some way by this lack of common sense.

I've seen Jews who truly believe they have some special bond with a blacks employee or their Latina nanny, etc. They seem unable to process the fact that they are almost always in the dominant position in these sorts of relationships and that this may actually cause resentment - that whatever they think about themselves, others do see them as white.

There are real dangers in the world, but their defenses seem maladjusted in a fundamental way

I don't think this would apply so much to Isrealis! - just particular subset of left wing diaspora types

"Now I wish my anecdote could just cancel out Matthew Weiner’s so he’d shut the hell up."

Here, here!

"The irony of course is that saying ‘Jews are not white’ or are not ‘true Europeans’ is an anti-semitic trope, meant to deny Jewish history and role in European culture. Kind of like saying blacks are not ‘real Americans’ when they’ve been here as long as anyone but the natives."

I wouldn't go far as saying it is "anti-semitism"; more like race baiters be race baiters.

"what do you really think are the reasons for Wiener hating WASPs?"

Why do some people here hate blacks? Why do some people here hate "amerinds"? Why do some people here hate Muslims? Why do some people hate conservatives? And on and on. The answer is right in front of you. Mr. Sailer doesn't need to write a column for the most elementary of responses.

The answer is right in front of you.

And what, pray tell, is that answer, Corvinus?

Personally, I think the source of Jewish animus towards all things White is their Talmud. I don’t think that subject has been broached in these threads. Why that is so, I don’t know.

Besides, I wouldn't be caught dead riding a subway. I'm an American, and Americans drive cars or trucks. But I do have to admit, if I was forced to ride a subway I'd sure as hell be carrying a gun like our curly-haired friend in that story.

I’ve taken the subway in both DC and Montreal. Didn’t seem so bad in either place. It’s actually kind of nice for visitors to the city. I damn sure wouldn’t do it in New York, though.

The existence of France, England, Switzerland, or Poland are not presently threatened (though Poland was absorbed quite a few times).

If American Jews assimilate, and Israel gets blown up, who's left?

Whedon was an interesting writer, though too feminist for my tastes.

“If American Jews assimilate, and Israel gets blown up, who’s left?”

As Steve has mentioned before, Ultra orthodox Jews act as a demographic reserve for Jews. The town of Kiryas Joel, outside NYC, is an example. Israel is also fairly well protected, and I don’t see it getting blown to smithereens any time soon.
Meanwhile France, England, and Switzerland are all experiencing demographic change, which could mean the unique cultures that developed in those places be replaced by another. Oddly enough, it appears Polish culture is the most protected, even though it has, as you said, been absorbed by its neighbours at various times.

I never experienced any anti-Jewishness growing up. Not a bit. And I grew up in a very Goy part of the country, very far from Los Angeles. I was probably the first Jew most of my elementary school classmates had ever met.

When the lady at the doctor's office asks me what race I am, I answer in a steady, clear voice and a smile on my face that I'm white.

Now I wish my anecdote could just cancel out Matthew Weiner's so he'd shut the hell up.

Power CHild says:When the lady at the doctor’s office asks me what race I am, I answer in a steady, clear voice and a smile on my face that I’m white. Now I wish my anecdote could just cancel out Matthew Weiner’s so he’d shut the hell up.

Weiner is dealing in more than mere anecdote. Jews whiteness helped them “pass” of course, with all privileges attaining thereto, but it still took the primarily black Civil Rights Movement to remove some barriers against Jews. Jews were beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Movement, including enforcement of new laws, as well as white women, despite much huffing and puffing about how it was exclusively for “the culluds.” For example, in the court action US versus Lake Lucerne 1968, the federal government sued so that restrictive covenants forbidding sale of land to both blacks AND Jews could not be used. Some decades earlier, your winning smile would not have counted for much, in a number of places. See:

by David R. Roediger. 2006. Working Toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White

.
Salier says
>b>One of Weiner’s goals, he suggested, was to simultaneously remind people of the overlap between Jewish culture and the culture at large, while also pointing out Jews’ non-white status and the sophisticated anti-Semitism that surrounded it — the fact that no matter how much Jews were able to pass, they always remained Other. …

Assorted “HBD” types are always pounding on Jews as being parasites leeching off a “purer” white stock, and indeed some suggest the Fuehrer’s “cleansing” operation during the Holocaust is “understandable” and “rational” as a reaction of the host body purging said parasites. And of course the Jews are considered “white” now, but some decades before it was dubious whether they were fit to be included in the reputedly rarefied ranks of whiteness. It was only after World War 2 hat they were generally considered “whitewashed.”

So Weiner spiel is not at all farfetched. And as far as many of “heriditarian” ilk, Jews certainly remain the despised or feared “Other.” See:

Karen Brodkin 1998. How Jews Became White Folks and what that Says about Race in America.

.It’s slightly demented to see Los Angeles in 1981 as a big WASP conspiracy against Jews, but, hey, whatever it works.

Interesting. During the 1980s when anti-semitism expression was at an all time low, the Simon Weisenthal Center of Los Angeles, had the most successful fund-raising operation of any domestic Jewish organization. So says Jewish author Edward Shapiro.

As Steve has mentioned before, Ultra orthodox Jews act as a demographic reserve for Jews. The town of Kiryas Joel, outside NYC, is an example. Israel is also fairly well protected, and I don't see it getting blown to smithereens any time soon.
Meanwhile France, England, and Switzerland are all experiencing demographic change, which could mean the unique cultures that developed in those places be replaced by another. Oddly enough, it appears Polish culture is the most protected, even though it has, as you said, been absorbed by its neighbours at various times.

I suppose Amish and Mennonite groups could be a demographic preserve for white Americans – especially those of German and Swiss descent.

DanaThomson saysWhy would Weiner want to embrace the ideology of so hateful a person? For being intelligent, why are Jews so damn stupid?

Lol, Anthony Weiner has not embraced any ideology where the “murder of millions of innocents was a glorious accomplishment that the Nazis could be proud of, and should be magnified, not denied.” A number of “Aryan” proponents have however, albeit in more muted terms. And a number of American scholars such as Kevin MacDonald find those murders a “rational” response of the hosts in dealing with perceived “Jew parasites” in the midst of a more pure, whiter society.

.
SFGjust really hard to attract quality (in the sense of ‘successful and organized’) people to white nationalism. You mostly have highly excluded people who have nothing to lose from being outed…There are a larger number of sympathizers, as any internet comment board will show, but few people with any prospects want to risk joining an organization on the SPLC’s list;

But as you say there are a lot of “under the table” sympathizers. And white nationalism has changed its colors. The old snarling Ku Kluxer/marching jackbooter is out- he’s just too visible. Its a more sophisticated veneer these days, with the old arguments couched in scientific jargon, and a well embedded network of linked “front” websites presenting an innocuous conservative front, that allow “plausible denial” – easily fooling the gullible. Behind the front however, at the second level are the sneering legions. They come out here and there – not only on web forums but you see them snarling bile on blog comments and YouTube video comments. These days no one needs the traditional Ku Kuxer Klavern or Neo Nazi “Reich gruppe” meeting at a bar someplace. Things are more subtle, but the snarling bottom lines have not changed.

Notice how the Irishman looks much more like an adult born with fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) more than anything else. That’s something I’ve noticed in a lot of these 19th century cartoons of the underclass, Irish and otherwise. FAS is a nurture rather than nature problem.

Different ethnics have different reactions to alcohol. Native Americans are a famous example.

Alcohol flush reactionBecause of the association with Asian ancestry, alcohol flush reaction has also been referred to by such informal names as Asian flush syndrome, Asian flush, and Asian glow.
...
Individuals who experience the alcohol flushing reaction may be less prone to alcoholism.
...
80% of Asian people ... have a variant of the gene coding for the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase ... resulting in an alcohol dehydrogenase enzyme that converts alcohol to toxic acetaldehyde at a much higher efficiency than other gene variants (40- to 100-fold in case of ADH1B).

What do you mean by this? I haven't seen the show. Is it conservative or something?

Mad Men also is conservative in that it’s one of the few shows on television that’s actually about business. (Now that the Office is over, Silicon Valley and House of Lies are really the only other scripted shows about business). The typical socialists hollywood liberals will only depict businessman as rapacious capitalist villains. Weiner actually demonstrates a real respect for commerce and capitalism, and the work and talent required to be successful in those endeavors. Particularly noteworthy is that even the advertising industry, typically denounced as the most “worthless” and “non-value adding” economic activity, is generally depicted as making a positive contribution.

Notice how the Irishman looks much more like an adult born with fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) more than anything else. That's something I've noticed in a lot of these 19th century cartoons of the underclass, Irish and otherwise. FAS is a nurture rather than nature problem.

“FAS is a nurture rather than nature problem.”

Different ethnics have different reactions to alcohol. Native Americans are a famous example.

Alcohol flush reactionBecause of the association with Asian ancestry, alcohol flush reaction has also been referred to by such informal names as Asian flush syndrome, Asian flush, and Asian glow.
…
Individuals who experience the alcohol flushing reaction may be less prone to alcoholism.
…
80% of Asian people … have a variant of the gene coding for the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase … resulting in an alcohol dehydrogenase enzyme that converts alcohol to toxic acetaldehyde at a much higher efficiency than other gene variants (40- to 100-fold in case of ADH1B).

True, but there's also a Jewish angle, namely, Jews are more pro-immigration even when they themselves are not totally removed from the consequences of it, and elite gentile whites are on average less pro-immigration (at the very least they spend less money buying politicians to promote it, in fact, they spend less money on average on any kind of political activism) than are elite Jews. Jewish money does skew elections contributions heavily in favor of immigration.

I cannot think of a both intelligent and honest way of stopping the discussion on this Jewish angle.

I also think the inability of Jews to see themselves as they might appear to disinterested outsiders might do them tremendous harm in the long run. For example does it serve Jewish interests that ethnically conscious Jews assist in the suicide of the West? Whether they are a necessary condition for that suicide or not, assisting it when it's probably not in the best interests of the Jewish tribe, well, at least it's not a very smart thing to do.

I’ve noticed this about some Jews. Very intelligent and capable – but an odd, almost childlike naiveté – their imagination is severely stunted when it comes to imagining threats coming from people other than Europeans.

I wonder if the high IQ gets cancelled out in some way by this lack of common sense.

I’ve seen Jews who truly believe they have some special bond with a blacks employee or their Latina nanny, etc. They seem unable to process the fact that they are almost always in the dominant position in these sorts of relationships and that this may actually cause resentment – that whatever they think about themselves, others do see them as white.

There are real dangers in the world, but their defenses seem maladjusted in a fundamental way

I don’t think this would apply so much to Isrealis! – just particular subset of left wing diaspora types

I’ve noticed this about some Jews. Very intelligent and capable – but an odd, almost childlike naiveté – their imagination is severely stunted when it comes to imagining threats coming from people other than Europeans.I wonder if the high IQ gets cancelled out in some way by this lack of common sense.

What you say is itself extremely naive. Who says they don't recognize "threats?" Jews were among the earliest, most devastating opponents of affirmative action "quotas" for example, and in the 1960s defeated the black "community control" school movement in NYC with savage attacks and counterattacks. In NYC the Jewish mayor Ed Koch roundly attacked and counterattacked black opponents with glee, even calling anyone who would vote for Jesse Jackson "crazy." Jews cheered on Republican mayor Rudy Guillani's tenure. Giuliani consistently raised the level of his Jewish support over time, from 60 percent in his losing race in 1989 to 65 in his 1993 victory and 72 in his 1997 reelection. No one has been more conscious of their "white cred" than Jews.

.I’ve seen Jews who truly believe they have some special bond with a blacks employee or their Latina nanny, etc. They seem unable to process the fact that they are almost always in the dominant position in these sorts of relationships and that this may actually cause resentment – that whatever they think about themselves, others do see them as white.

This is not a "Jewish" problem. EVERY employer of domestic help, depending n how they treat the people who work for them, can achieve a certain closeness, though of course both parties usually know there are limits. In many cases a special bond is forged in the domestic sphere. It happens- its part of the package- and also everyone knows it has a practical limit. The boss ain't gonna be happy to find out that "Jose" and the little princess planning to marry next fall. Sure there are limits.

But even aside from that, Black Caribbean immigrants who worked as domestics, and non-domestics in both London and NYC for example can tell you that it was Jews who helped them get a foothold with property rentals and purchases in certain parts of those cities where the welcome mat read "unwelcome." Whether altruism or just plain good business, the bottom line was positive as far as those immigrants were concerned.

On the flipside of course are numerous conflicts. The typical complaint- of gouging "Jew" merchants, stingy pawnbrokers or uncaring slumlords, suggests that for other Jews there was no altruism involved at all. They didn't/don't give a damn about any Blacks, Asians or whoever. All that counted was the cash bottom line.

.There are real dangers in the world, but their defenses seem maladjusted in a fundamental way. I don’t think this would apply so much to Isrealis! – just particular subset of left wing diaspora types Again, this is rather naive. Even liberal left-wing Jews watch out for the bottom line- they can be very well "white" when they want to, and do not hesitate to use that to their advantage when it suits them. No one has been more critical of other minorities than Jews, as massive amounts of documentation show. Just the "community control" school battles brought out the long knives, long sharpened on such criticism. As black activists found out, so-called "Jewish allies" were few and far between. In England Jewish frontbench opposition spokesman Sir Keith Joseph, urged the Jews of his constituency to support Margaret Thatcher's immigration clampdown, and some Jews, when not in silent tacit support, even openly joined Enoch Powell's race-baiting "National Front." There has been a lot of LIP SERVICE about Jewish "solidarity" with other non-white groups, but the bottom line, in several cases is anything but solid.

Sailer may be right in the sense that Weiner may be part of the LIP SERVICE, faux "solidarity" tradition, but the bottom line is that Jews embrace whiteness, when it suits them. To their credit, SOME Jews did lend critical support to the US Civil Rights Movement.

In Nazi Germany, Jews were not ‘white’. And most ‘Slavs’ weren’t truly ‘white’ either.

And even among populations considered as white, some were seen as lower-grade white while others were seen as higher-grade white.

During Roman times, the Romans looked down on Northern Europeans as barbaric whites.
During the modern era, the lighter-skinned Northerners looked down on southern Europeans as less pure. Swarthy and tainted by other blood. Hitler told Mussolini that Italians were white but inferior due to some black blood. The conversation must have been like in True Romance.

In America, there were some Wasps who were reluctant to see certain white ethnics are truly white. And even among those who did see them as whites, there was a tendency to look upon some whites–especially the swarthy ones–as lesser whites.

And even among Jews, there was the western Jew vs eastern Jew thing.

I known Polish-American friends who hate the idea of ‘white guilt’. They see Poles as having conquered no part of Africa, Asia, or Middle East. If anything, Poles got conquered by Germans and Russians. But they come to America and suddenly they are burdened with ‘white guilt’ and ‘white privilege’. But unlike Jews, they don’t have the media power to cry and bitch about it. So, they fume in silence. (Given Nazi German hell over Poland, you’d think Poles would hate Germany more. But Poles hate Russia more due to historical and geographical reasons. And cultural and economic ones. Poles geographically gained from Germany but lost land to Russia after WWII. Though Germans did horrible things, Germans are advanced, and Poles look up to productive and clean Germans. They despise the sloppy and barbaric Russians. Because Poles are Slavs, they don’t want to be associated with the Other Slavs, the lowlife Russians. They want to be seen as the good Slavs, the Catholics who are closer to the West. Also, after WWII, 5o yrs of Soviet occupation didn’t endear Poles to Russians. There are ‘white’ issues among Poles. In a way, Polish attitude toward Russians is victim-centered. “They conquered and oppressed us for too long.” But the attitude also has traces of racial superiority. “We Poles are purer whites than those Russians with dirty Tartar-Mongol blood.” So, Poles want to identify with ‘whiter’ Western Europe, but this is ironic since it is now Western Europe that has embraced multi-culti mania to Africanize and Islamize Europe.)

Given all these nuances, Weiner’s feelings about whiteness is certainly understandable. Among blacks, there were light-skinned ones who also had an ambivalent relation to both white community and black community. As lighter-skinned and generally smarter, they sought greater accessibility into white community. But there were limits to how far they could go. So, they identified with black identity. But they didn’t want to be one with ‘black trash’ either.

To the extent that Weiner looks for nuances in the meaning of whiteness, he can be an interesting guy. Especially in America, different ethnics were members of a white race but also mutually suspicious and hostile at times. And then, you have groups like Lebanese who can pass for whites or may not be considered white. Steve Jobs grandparents rejected their daughter for having a child with a Middle Easterner. Was Steve Jobs white?

And of course, Italians and Jews had their own prejudices not only against wasps but other kinds of ‘whites’. Who can forget the scene in Goodfellas where Tommy complains about ‘in this day and age…’

In some ways, these distinctions are Old World, and these tensions were also part of the New World narrative(as it was in America that these various ethnic groups met each other for the first time. If not for America, how many Greeks would have rubbed shoulders with Poles or Swedes?) But as everyone had to start anew in America, the white ethnic blended together. Especially because so many immigrants were poor and not very literate, they looked to Wasp elites to define and dictate what it means to be American and white. So, various ethnic groups became ‘white’ in accordance to Wasp definition. They emulated waspness.
Also, the black problem brought the whites together. Italians, Irish, and Poles may not have liked one another, but they feared blacks more. So, that had a unifying effect on whites.
And over time, there was a lot of intermarrying and a kind of new whiteness did develop in America.

But Jews stood out. What all white groups had in common was Christian heritage. Jews were the sole exception. Also, if all white groups had in common certain hostile feelings about Jews based on suspicion, distrust, fear, envy, resentment.
Just as blacks had a unifying effect on whites, Jews tended to have a unifying effect on white gentiles.

But Jews had one thing in common with the ethnics. They were all late immigrants. The Ellis Island people. So, Jews could play on the dichotomy of Wasps as Old Money and Old privilege vs Ethnics(Jews, Italians, Poles, Greeks, etc). as the upstarts and the rise of New America. Many ethnics were divided on this. They felt resentment against Old Money Wasp but they didn’t trust Jews.
Jews were different from other ethnics in that more of them arrived in America well-educated. While poorly educated Jews were common, there were also a good number of intellectual Jews among the immigrants. And Jews took schools more seriously. If other ethnics looked to Wasps to define Americanness and whiteness, Jews soon challenged Wasp authority in academia and media and began to forge a new narrative.

So, the politics of whiteness was never simple in America. Even among whites, the ‘blonde’ hash had different connotations. For Wasps, blondes mean ‘our women’. For Italian-American men, it means the Nordic golden girl. Tony Montana the Cubano’s hots for Michelle Pfeiffer. Portnoy and his lust for ‘shikses’. So, there are sexual nuances and obsessions to whiteness.

If Weiner wants to deal with this, fine. The problem is he is nuanced about shades of whiteness but totally simpleminded about how Jews are one with the people of color. Sure, given the tragedies of the Jewish experience, one can find parallels between Jews and blacks, Jews and Chinese, Jews and Muslims, Jews and Mexicans. But there are huge differences too, as shown in Homicide by Mamet. Or Mamet’s movie about Phil Specter who profited from black music but also had problems with the black race.

Also, the meaning of ‘Hispanic’, ‘Asian’, and ‘Muslim’ are even more problematic.
Hispanic what? Spanish-Hispanic? Italian-Hispanic(as many immigrants from Brazil and Argentina are)? White Cuban Hispanic? Meso-American Hispanic?
Just like fear of blacks pushed all white groups together, the image of Yanqui Imperialist brings all Hispanics together.
And what is ‘Asian’? East Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian? Pacific Islander? And given all the tensions and distrust among Asians in the Old World, the only reason why there is a united ‘Asian community’ is due to the image of ‘white privilege’ that is supposedly holding Asians down. (Various groups in China love to bash one another. Hong Kong people look down on Mainlanders as barbarians. There is no love lost between Indians and Pakistanis.) In reality, your average Asians wants to flee from blacks and live with whites. But the PC-approved idea is Asians must unite because ‘white privilege’ is out to get them.
Generally, ‘white privilege’ seems eater to ‘get Asians’ by hiring them in high tech companies, but Asians don’t want that image since it undermines the victim narrative that is so crucial to feeling righteous in America.

As for Muslim, it can be some white guy from Lebanon, black guy from Somalia, Iranian, Palestinian-American, and etc, none of whom see eye to eye on anything.

So, if Weiner wants to play this game of racial nuance, he has to stick with the rules. If he wants to say there’s nuances to the rule of ‘whiteness’ and that Jewish whiteness is ambiguous, so far so good. But if he then wants to claim that Jews are comfortably one with the blacks and other people of color, that’s just ridiculous. He’s violating his own game of nuance.

It’s like some Polish guy saying that since Germans looked down on his people, he’s one with with the Amazonian Indians. Invoking nuance in one area to promote dogma in another is dishonest.

Anon921 says:What is lacking is the class element. How come Weiner doesn’t try to identify with lower class whites against upper class whites? He bunches all whites together, as if every white person is a Don Draper.

But this is exactly the same stereotypical practice of many “heriditarian” types when dealing with other groups. Why is it bad if Weiner uses the same methods?

.It’s as if all whites are Wasps and Jews are with the people of color.
But for many of the types above, Jews are an enemy “Other” – and might just as well be one of the coloreds. Jews are just more successful that’s all and attract greater envy because of it.

.“Jews. Are. White.”
In some socio-political contexts in the United States, yes, NOW they are, but some decades ago they were considered non-white or “not quite” white.

.
Anon saysMore likely, he [Korean] picked up those attitudes in the fancy college he attended. If you’re a non-white in college and say you have no problem with whites and love America, white academics don’t like you.
Not necessarily. He would not have to wait to get into a “fancy” college to get one of his several “Asian Diss Moments.” In Junior High and High school he would probably run into some whites mocking his ancestry, jealous of his harder work and academic accomplishments, etc etc. He doesn’t have to wait for alleged “elites” to teach him such things in college.

.So, if you’re non-white and say most white Americans are good people and you love the US, white academics will see you as low grade. To win the approval of white academic elites, you have to show that you are filled with angst and alienation. Put down white America to score points with white elites.

Not at all. White elites are just as concerned about white hegemony as the white proles. The difference is they don’t want to appear MEAN or HARSH about it, and want a nobler white VENEER, as opposed to the sneering, snarling racist- but their bottom lines are the same. They just prefer a more condescending, less stressful “soft hegemony.”

Hence the same white “elites” will go home to their gated communities which have zoning controls that suppress moderate priced housing. The end result of such controls- less minorities- white neighborhoods or schools. Said “elites” will repair to their dating sites and despite fulsome paeans to “diversity: will also like most every other white, will reply to or specify “white only” as their dating match. The notion of white elites “giving away the store” to “the culluds” is a laughable line only the white gullible eat up. In fact, some white antiracists complain all the time that higher grade liberal whites are uncomfortable talking about race and are just as racist as the next man, only in a “softer” way. Its when they are in situations where “the mike is off” – in safe, white venues here no culluds disturb the decor, that they then will let their true colors show.

.One difference between Asians and non-Asian minorities is this. Blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics only take on victim mentality and hardly ever criticize their own kind.
—————–
Laughable rubbish. There is a more than a century’s worth of tradition of self-criticism. Even the fiery Black Muslims, who appear in the middle of that range, are unsparing in their criticism of “the people.” Malcolm X’s “Stand Up” speeches, and even his autobiography expose the above claim as so much baloney.

. Asians try to be white but they’ve been taught to see themselves as victims of whites. But since they are not victims of whites and do well in white society, they feel as traitors to the non-white cause. So, they are filled with ersatz white guilt.

LOL, oh well I am sure NO Asians have been victims of whites. Indeed. But this would certainly come as curious news to those hundreds of Chinese murdered by whites in earlier California, some for such “crimes” as operating hand laundries. Then there were Japanese American citizens, driven out of their hoes on the West Coast during WW2. Even more curious, why would Asians, who would not be unaware of this history be having “white” guilt about being murdered or dispossessed? If you are gonna project “white” guilt on to Asians you gotta come up with a more believable spiel dude…

"But this is exactly the same stereotypical practice of many “heriditarian” types when dealing with other groups. Why is it bad if Weiner uses the same methods?"

Because he claims to be for equality and against privilege.

"Not necessarily. He would not have to wait to get into a “fancy” college to get one of his several “Asian Diss Moments.” In Junior High and High school he would probably run into some whites mocking his ancestry, jealous of his harder work and academic accomplishments, etc etc. He doesn’t have to wait for alleged “elites” to teach him such things in college."

I went to a mixed race suburban school from 7th grade onward. It had whites, Jews, Asians, and etc. No blacks. And highschool was like a bigger version of Middle School.
And I just saw no overt hostility against Asians. There were individual incidents to be sure, but you could find pricks among all groups.

One Korean jerkoff in 7th and 8th guy--I loathe him to this day--was one of the biggest pricks I ever met. And he routinely picked on some Polish guy who was a close friend of mine. Slapped him around. And Jews were pretty nasty to him too with their Polish jokes. Now, much of this was in good jest, and kids will be kids, and we had thicker skin back then. No Trigger warning crap, no sensitivity. It was a Jew-heavy school with the annual ritual of The Slave Day where funds were raised by kids volunteering to be sold off(in Old South auction style) to teachers and students. No one raised an eyebrow, no one complained. It was all in good jest. I KID YOU NOT.

The notion that American schools have been all about evil white kids picking on minorities is mostly a myth. I'm sure there are some communities with 'white trash' jerks. But the biggest thugs in American schools are black. That's why so many schools are all black or close to it. People try not to send their kids to schools with blacks. Most white kids are not bullies. It's just a fact.

If some Asian-American kid got it bad, it was likely from a black kid, Hispanic kid, or even another Asian kid than from whites. But if a successful Asian-American guy gave a speech and said, "I went to school and white folks were nice but blacks were thugs, Hispanics were jerks, and a lot of Asians were punks who tried to make a join a gang", he's not gonna be very popular among the privileged PC crowd.

"Not at all. White elites are just as concerned about white hegemony as the white proles."

They are concerned about elite/class hegemony, not 'white hegemony'. Why do they keep adopting black African kids? Why do they intermarry with non-whites? They want the privilege but they don't believe it has to be white.

As for white proles, mere survival would do nicely. Why would they think hegemony when they don't have it in the first place?

"Laughable rubbish. There is a more than a century’s worth of tradition of self-criticism. Even the fiery Black Muslims, who appear in the middle of that range, are unsparing in their criticism of “the people.” Malcolm X’s “Stand Up” speeches, and even his autobiography expose the above claim as so much baloney."

But those blacks were criticizing blacks for not being tough enough, not being aggressive enough. Malcolm X was saying "don't trust the white man". He was saying MLK was too soft, too compromising. He was arguing for MORE black power, MORE black rage. He's saying that blacks should stick together even more. He was not criticizing blacks for doing wrong to non-blacks.

In contrast, you do hear, especially among East-Asians, that, gee, their nations are not 'diverse' enough, that too many of their country men have 'xenophobic' views. East Asians criticize their own community from a position of guilt than pride. Asians say they should be more understanding of blacks, Hispanics, and etc.

In contrast, blacks are all about black power.
And we don't see Jews apologize much to Palestinians either.
And Hispanics are into La Raza thing. Given that white Hispanics committed all the 'evils' of imperialism, this seems odd. But even white Hispanics play the role of people of color without the slightest sense of irony.

"Indeed. But this would certainly come as curious news to those hundreds of Chinese murdered by whites in earlier California, some for such “crimes” as operating hand laundries. Then there were Japanese American citizens, driven out of their hoes on the West Coast during WW2."

Yes yes, but we are talking of Asians who grew up in recent America without facing hostility.
And Harry Baldwin was talking about some Korean guy. As Korean immigration began in the mid 60s, it was considerably after the Chinese-made railroads and Japanese in camps. (Besides, I'm not sure Koreans would have given much crap about Japanese in camps. They probably thought, as with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "serves them right.")

“Jews. Are. White.”
In some socio-political contexts in the United States, yes, NOW they are, but some decades ago they were considered non-white or “not quite” white.

We should ask not whether a given person is considered--by others--to be a European Gentile but whether that person considers himself to be "jewish."

As another commenter astutely noted in these Weiner threads, the key question on this issue is whether a given person identifies as "jewish." Many self-identifying jews try to attribute that choice to Gentiles.

Mad Men also is conservative in that it's one of the few shows on television that's actually about business. (Now that the Office is over, Silicon Valley and House of Lies are really the only other scripted shows about business). The typical socialists hollywood liberals will only depict businessman as rapacious capitalist villains. Weiner actually demonstrates a real respect for commerce and capitalism, and the work and talent required to be successful in those endeavors. Particularly noteworthy is that even the advertising industry, typically denounced as the most "worthless" and "non-value adding" economic activity, is generally depicted as making a positive contribution.

“Mad Men also is conservative in that it’s one of the few shows on television that’s actually about business.”

Given the kinds of social policies Wall Street, Hollywood, and Las Vegas stand for, it’s a bit too late to associate business with conservatism.

I don't think anyone ever considers Hollywood as a microcosm for business in general. Most shows that deal with the business side of Hollywood focus on the unique aspects of it. Same with Wall Street and Vegas, for that matter.

Power CHild says:When the lady at the doctor’s office asks me what race I am, I answer in a steady, clear voice and a smile on my face that I’m white. Now I wish my anecdote could just cancel out Matthew Weiner’s so he’d shut the hell up.

Weiner is dealing in more than mere anecdote. Jews whiteness helped them "pass" of course, with all privileges attaining thereto, but it still took the primarily black Civil Rights Movement to remove some barriers against Jews. Jews were beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Movement, including enforcement of new laws, as well as white women, despite much huffing and puffing about how it was exclusively for "the culluds." For example, in the court action US versus Lake Lucerne 1968, the federal government sued so that restrictive covenants forbidding sale of land to both blacks AND Jews could not be used. Some decades earlier, your winning smile would not have counted for much, in a number of places. See:

by David R. Roediger. 2006. Working Toward Whiteness: How America's Immigrants Became White

.Salier says>b>One of Weiner’s goals, he suggested, was to simultaneously remind people of the overlap between Jewish culture and the culture at large, while also pointing out Jews’ non-white status and the sophisticated anti-Semitism that surrounded it — the fact that no matter how much Jews were able to pass, they always remained Other. …

Assorted "HBD" types are always pounding on Jews as being parasites leeching off a "purer" white stock, and indeed some suggest the Fuehrer's "cleansing" operation during the Holocaust is "understandable" and "rational" as a reaction of the host body purging said parasites. And of course the Jews are considered "white" now, but some decades before it was dubious whether they were fit to be included in the reputedly rarefied ranks of whiteness. It was only after World War 2 hat they were generally considered "whitewashed."

So Weiner spiel is not at all farfetched. And as far as many of "heriditarian" ilk, Jews certainly remain the despised or feared "Other." See:

Karen Brodkin 1998. How Jews Became White Folks and what that Says about Race in America. http://www.amazon.com/Became-White-Folks-About-America/dp/081352590X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1432421307&sr=1-1&keywords=How+Jews+Became+White+Folks-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.It’s slightly demented to see Los Angeles in 1981 as a big WASP conspiracy against Jews, but, hey, whatever it works.

Interesting. During the 1980s when anti-semitism expression was at an all time low, the Simon Weisenthal Center of Los Angeles, had the most successful fund-raising operation of any domestic Jewish organization. So says Jewish author Edward Shapiro.

Weiner is dealing in anecdote. His whole approach has been anecdotal!

You say Weiner’s anecdote reflects a wider situation. Well, I was born in the 1980s and I say mine does too. You agree: “…the 1980s when anti-semitism expression was at an all time low…”

Particularly noteworthy is that even the advertising industry, typically denounced as the most “worthless” and “non-value adding” economic activity, is generally depicted as making a positive contribution.

Particularly noteworthy is that even the advertising industry, typically denounced as the most “worthless” and “non-value adding” economic activity, is generally depicted as making a positive contribution.

Anon921 says:
What is lacking is the class element. How come Weiner doesn’t try to identify with lower class whites against upper class whites? He bunches all whites together, as if every white person is a Don Draper.

But this is exactly the same stereotypical practice of many "heriditarian" types when dealing with other groups. Why is it bad if Weiner uses the same methods?

.
It’s as if all whites are Wasps and Jews are with the people of color. But for many of the types above, Jews are an enemy "Other" - and might just as well be one of the coloreds. Jews are just more successful that's all and attract greater envy because of it.

.
“Jews. Are. White.” In some socio-political contexts in the United States, yes, NOW they are, but some decades ago they were considered non-white or "not quite" white.

.
Anon says
More likely, he [Korean] picked up those attitudes in the fancy college he attended. If you’re a non-white in college and say you have no problem with whites and love America, white academics don’t like you. Not necessarily. He would not have to wait to get into a "fancy" college to get one of his several "Asian Diss Moments." In Junior High and High school he would probably run into some whites mocking his ancestry, jealous of his harder work and academic accomplishments, etc etc. He doesn't have to wait for alleged "elites" to teach him such things in college.

.
So, if you’re non-white and say most white Americans are good people and you love the US, white academics will see you as low grade. To win the approval of white academic elites, you have to show that you are filled with angst and alienation. Put down white America to score points with white elites.

Not at all. White elites are just as concerned about white hegemony as the white proles. The difference is they don't want to appear MEAN or HARSH about it, and want a nobler white VENEER, as opposed to the sneering, snarling racist- but their bottom lines are the same. They just prefer a more condescending, less stressful "soft hegemony."

Hence the same white "elites" will go home to their gated communities which have zoning controls that suppress moderate priced housing. The end result of such controls- less minorities- white neighborhoods or schools. Said "elites" will repair to their dating sites and despite fulsome paeans to "diversity: will also like most every other white, will reply to or specify "white only" as their dating match. The notion of white elites "giving away the store" to "the culluds" is a laughable line only the white gullible eat up. In fact, some white antiracists complain all the time that higher grade liberal whites are uncomfortable talking about race and are just as racist as the next man, only in a "softer" way. Its when they are in situations where "the mike is off" - in safe, white venues here no culluds disturb the decor, that they then will let their true colors show.

.
One difference between Asians and non-Asian minorities is this. Blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics only take on victim mentality and hardly ever criticize their own kind. -----------------
Laughable rubbish. There is a more than a century's worth of tradition of self-criticism. Even the fiery Black Muslims, who appear in the middle of that range, are unsparing in their criticism of "the people." Malcolm X's "Stand Up" speeches, and even his autobiography expose the above claim as so much baloney.

.
Asians try to be white but they’ve been taught to see themselves as victims of whites. But since they are not victims of whites and do well in white society, they feel as traitors to the non-white cause. So, they are filled with ersatz white guilt.

LOL, oh well I am sure NO Asians have been victims of whites. Indeed. But this would certainly come as curious news to those hundreds of Chinese murdered by whites in earlier California, some for such "crimes" as operating hand laundries. Then there were Japanese American citizens, driven out of their hoes on the West Coast during WW2. Even more curious, why would Asians, who would not be unaware of this history be having "white" guilt about being murdered or dispossessed? If you are gonna project "white" guilt on to Asians you gotta come up with a more believable spiel dude...

“But this is exactly the same stereotypical practice of many “heriditarian” types when dealing with other groups. Why is it bad if Weiner uses the same methods?”

Because he claims to be for equality and against privilege.

“Not necessarily. He would not have to wait to get into a “fancy” college to get one of his several “Asian Diss Moments.” In Junior High and High school he would probably run into some whites mocking his ancestry, jealous of his harder work and academic accomplishments, etc etc. He doesn’t have to wait for alleged “elites” to teach him such things in college.”

I went to a mixed race suburban school from 7th grade onward. It had whites, Jews, Asians, and etc. No blacks. And highschool was like a bigger version of Middle School.
And I just saw no overt hostility against Asians. There were individual incidents to be sure, but you could find pricks among all groups.

One Korean jerkoff in 7th and 8th guy–I loathe him to this day–was one of the biggest pricks I ever met. And he routinely picked on some Polish guy who was a close friend of mine. Slapped him around. And Jews were pretty nasty to him too with their Polish jokes. Now, much of this was in good jest, and kids will be kids, and we had thicker skin back then. No Trigger warning crap, no sensitivity. It was a Jew-heavy school with the annual ritual of The Slave Day where funds were raised by kids volunteering to be sold off(in Old South auction style) to teachers and students. No one raised an eyebrow, no one complained. It was all in good jest. I KID YOU NOT.

The notion that American schools have been all about evil white kids picking on minorities is mostly a myth. I’m sure there are some communities with ‘white trash’ jerks. But the biggest thugs in American schools are black. That’s why so many schools are all black or close to it. People try not to send their kids to schools with blacks. Most white kids are not bullies. It’s just a fact.

If some Asian-American kid got it bad, it was likely from a black kid, Hispanic kid, or even another Asian kid than from whites. But if a successful Asian-American guy gave a speech and said, “I went to school and white folks were nice but blacks were thugs, Hispanics were jerks, and a lot of Asians were punks who tried to make a join a gang”, he’s not gonna be very popular among the privileged PC crowd.

“Not at all. White elites are just as concerned about white hegemony as the white proles.”

They are concerned about elite/class hegemony, not ‘white hegemony’. Why do they keep adopting black African kids? Why do they intermarry with non-whites? They want the privilege but they don’t believe it has to be white.

As for white proles, mere survival would do nicely. Why would they think hegemony when they don’t have it in the first place?

“Laughable rubbish. There is a more than a century’s worth of tradition of self-criticism. Even the fiery Black Muslims, who appear in the middle of that range, are unsparing in their criticism of “the people.” Malcolm X’s “Stand Up” speeches, and even his autobiography expose the above claim as so much baloney.”

But those blacks were criticizing blacks for not being tough enough, not being aggressive enough. Malcolm X was saying “don’t trust the white man”. He was saying MLK was too soft, too compromising. He was arguing for MORE black power, MORE black rage. He’s saying that blacks should stick together even more. He was not criticizing blacks for doing wrong to non-blacks.

In contrast, you do hear, especially among East-Asians, that, gee, their nations are not ‘diverse’ enough, that too many of their country men have ‘xenophobic’ views. East Asians criticize their own community from a position of guilt than pride. Asians say they should be more understanding of blacks, Hispanics, and etc.

In contrast, blacks are all about black power.
And we don’t see Jews apologize much to Palestinians either.
And Hispanics are into La Raza thing. Given that white Hispanics committed all the ‘evils’ of imperialism, this seems odd. But even white Hispanics play the role of people of color without the slightest sense of irony.

“Indeed. But this would certainly come as curious news to those hundreds of Chinese murdered by whites in earlier California, some for such “crimes” as operating hand laundries. Then there were Japanese American citizens, driven out of their hoes on the West Coast during WW2.”

Yes yes, but we are talking of Asians who grew up in recent America without facing hostility.
And Harry Baldwin was talking about some Korean guy. As Korean immigration began in the mid 60s, it was considerably after the Chinese-made railroads and Japanese in camps. (Besides, I’m not sure Koreans would have given much crap about Japanese in camps. They probably thought, as with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, “serves them right.”)

The quest to define Whiteness on the web is the modern-day equivalent of the search for the philosopher’s stone. Modern chemistry came out of the pseudo-science of the alchemists, and astronomy came out of astrology, so maybe something will come out of all this crowd-sourced work on Whiteness.

I have my own working definition of Whiteness and I don’t feel any particular need to sync it up with anyone else’s. I remember not being White in my childhood and only realizing I was one as vibrant immigration increased. I became White the same way a person only becomes a “pedestrian” when cars are introduced to his town; before then he was just someone walking from one place to another. I’m White now because there are “persons of colour” in my habitat. In the same way I’m a pedestrian when there are cars nearby. I had Whiteness thrust upon me but I’m fine with it now.

Anon921 says:
What is lacking is the class element. How come Weiner doesn’t try to identify with lower class whites against upper class whites? He bunches all whites together, as if every white person is a Don Draper.

But this is exactly the same stereotypical practice of many "heriditarian" types when dealing with other groups. Why is it bad if Weiner uses the same methods?

.
It’s as if all whites are Wasps and Jews are with the people of color. But for many of the types above, Jews are an enemy "Other" - and might just as well be one of the coloreds. Jews are just more successful that's all and attract greater envy because of it.

.
“Jews. Are. White.” In some socio-political contexts in the United States, yes, NOW they are, but some decades ago they were considered non-white or "not quite" white.

.
Anon says
More likely, he [Korean] picked up those attitudes in the fancy college he attended. If you’re a non-white in college and say you have no problem with whites and love America, white academics don’t like you. Not necessarily. He would not have to wait to get into a "fancy" college to get one of his several "Asian Diss Moments." In Junior High and High school he would probably run into some whites mocking his ancestry, jealous of his harder work and academic accomplishments, etc etc. He doesn't have to wait for alleged "elites" to teach him such things in college.

.
So, if you’re non-white and say most white Americans are good people and you love the US, white academics will see you as low grade. To win the approval of white academic elites, you have to show that you are filled with angst and alienation. Put down white America to score points with white elites.

Not at all. White elites are just as concerned about white hegemony as the white proles. The difference is they don't want to appear MEAN or HARSH about it, and want a nobler white VENEER, as opposed to the sneering, snarling racist- but their bottom lines are the same. They just prefer a more condescending, less stressful "soft hegemony."

Hence the same white "elites" will go home to their gated communities which have zoning controls that suppress moderate priced housing. The end result of such controls- less minorities- white neighborhoods or schools. Said "elites" will repair to their dating sites and despite fulsome paeans to "diversity: will also like most every other white, will reply to or specify "white only" as their dating match. The notion of white elites "giving away the store" to "the culluds" is a laughable line only the white gullible eat up. In fact, some white antiracists complain all the time that higher grade liberal whites are uncomfortable talking about race and are just as racist as the next man, only in a "softer" way. Its when they are in situations where "the mike is off" - in safe, white venues here no culluds disturb the decor, that they then will let their true colors show.

.
One difference between Asians and non-Asian minorities is this. Blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics only take on victim mentality and hardly ever criticize their own kind. -----------------
Laughable rubbish. There is a more than a century's worth of tradition of self-criticism. Even the fiery Black Muslims, who appear in the middle of that range, are unsparing in their criticism of "the people." Malcolm X's "Stand Up" speeches, and even his autobiography expose the above claim as so much baloney.

.
Asians try to be white but they’ve been taught to see themselves as victims of whites. But since they are not victims of whites and do well in white society, they feel as traitors to the non-white cause. So, they are filled with ersatz white guilt.

LOL, oh well I am sure NO Asians have been victims of whites. Indeed. But this would certainly come as curious news to those hundreds of Chinese murdered by whites in earlier California, some for such "crimes" as operating hand laundries. Then there were Japanese American citizens, driven out of their hoes on the West Coast during WW2. Even more curious, why would Asians, who would not be unaware of this history be having "white" guilt about being murdered or dispossessed? If you are gonna project "white" guilt on to Asians you gotta come up with a more believable spiel dude...

“Jews. Are. White.”
In some socio-political contexts in the United States, yes, NOW they are, but some decades ago they were considered non-white or “not quite” white.

We should ask not whether a given person is considered–by others–to be a European Gentile but whether that person considers himself to be “jewish.”

As another commenter astutely noted in these Weiner threads, the key question on this issue is whether a given person identifies as “jewish.” Many self-identifying jews try to attribute that choice to Gentiles.

Jews are a white European ethnic group that has often been scapegoated and demonized by other white European ethnic groups. Not the only European group that has happened to, but Jews probably have had to deal with it on the most sustained basis.

Saying Jews are not white is like saying Slavs or Greeks or Sicilians are not white. It's a product of that American obsession with white oppressors and non-white 'victims' so that everyone who can claim victimization must not be 'white'. Might be news to the Irish Catholics after the English were responsible for millions of them dying, or to the 80+% of the Russian population who were essentially enslaved serfs up till the 1860s at least.

The irony of course is that saying 'Jews are not white' or are not 'true Europeans' is an anti-semitic trope, meant to deny Jewish history and role in European culture. Kind of like saying blacks are not 'real Americans' when they've been here as long as anyone but the natives.

Jews are a white European ethnic group that has often been scapegoated and demonized by other white European ethnic groups.

It — the scapegoating — is the other way around. Since Jewish group identity and interests can’t be mentioned, let alone subjected to moral critique, all actions of Jews are attributed to “whites”, and then serve as a pretext for anti-White indoctrination that posits that Whites are uniquely and collectively guilty. Donald Sterling is a “white” racist. Ethnic nepotism in Hollywood is an example in Jewish privilege. Etc., ad nauseam.

DanaThomson says
Why would Weiner want to embrace the ideology of so hateful a person? For being intelligent, why are Jews so damn stupid?

Lol, Anthony Weiner has not embraced any ideology where the "murder of millions of innocents was a glorious accomplishment that the Nazis could be proud of, and should be magnified, not denied." A number of "Aryan" proponents have however, albeit in more muted terms. And a number of American scholars such as Kevin MacDonald find those murders a "rational" response of the hosts in dealing with perceived "Jew parasites" in the midst of a more pure, whiter society.

.
SFG
just really hard to attract quality (in the sense of ‘successful and organized’) people to white nationalism. You mostly have highly excluded people who have nothing to lose from being outed...There are a larger number of sympathizers, as any internet comment board will show, but few people with any prospects want to risk joining an organization on the SPLC’s list;

But as you say there are a lot of "under the table" sympathizers. And white nationalism has changed its colors. The old snarling Ku Kluxer/marching jackbooter is out- he's just too visible. Its a more sophisticated veneer these days, with the old arguments couched in scientific jargon, and a well embedded network of linked "front" websites presenting an innocuous conservative front, that allow "plausible denial" - easily fooling the gullible. Behind the front however, at the second level are the sneering legions. They come out here and there - not only on web forums but you see them snarling bile on blog comments and YouTube video comments. These days no one needs the traditional Ku Kuxer Klavern or Neo Nazi "Reich gruppe" meeting at a bar someplace. Things are more subtle, but the snarling bottom lines have not changed.

Lol, Anthony Weiner has not embraced any ideology where the “murder of millions of innocents was a glorious accomplishment

Well now there you have a point. That's not Weiner, but Marx sure has a lot of millions on his tab. Bu couldn't we say that people like Engels share it too? I mean, good old Germanic Engels provided much research and even bankrolled Marx, though Marx still kept dodging bill collectors and dragging his family through hell.

Genetically speaking, Jews are an outlier group in Europe, but they also don't cluster well with Middle Easterners. They are a group in between the two, and are in many respects closer to Europeans than to Middle Easterners. In many respects (because of both drift and differential selection) they are quite a bit different from both. Berlusconi or Putin are closer related to me than Netanyahu, but Netanyahu is closer related to me than King Abdullah of Jordan.

In a concentric circle of loyalty, I'd be more loyal to Italians, Poles or Swedes than to Jews, but more loyal to Jews than to Iraqi Arabs. I'd be roughly as loyal to Jews as to Turks maybe. Of course, real life doesn't work that way. People's family loyalties are somewhat arbitrary. I'm equally related to all cousins (actually, that's not exactly true because of how genetic inheritance works), but some of my cousins are closer to me than others. I have a cousin with whom I rarely if ever talked to in my life, whereas with some of my cousins I talk to at least once every few months, even though we live in different countries. Why should we expect nationalism or racialism (which is basically a kind of super-extended familism) to be any different?

I also don't think it helps Jews in the eyes of racially conscious whites if they are white. If they are white, than they are also majority traitors. All of their ethnic organizations are traitors to the white cause. I haven't even seen a Jewish organization anywhere that didn't promote multiculturalism. Pro-Israel nationalist activism is correlated with pro-immigration activism. Politically active billionaires who donate to Israeli causes also donate to pro-immigration causes. In other words, for Jews, being racially conscious rarely leads to anti-immigrationism, and most politically active Jews are both nationalists (as Jews) and pro-immigration (in America and Europe, but only pro-Jewish immigration in Israel). If I view them as just belonging to a different race and being loyal to that different race, then I could at least accept it. If I view them as belonging to the very same race as I do, then they are traitors. In most people's eyes, being a traitor is worse than being a member of another tribe.

Also, regardless of what one thinks of Jews, whether enemies or traitors (the large majority of them, at any rate), on the personal level many could be pleasant acquaintances. Some of them are commenting here (although they should spend less of their energies trying to persuade us that Jews are not so bad, after all, and more of their energies trying to persuade their fellow Jews that they should change their ways - believe me, if Jews changed their behavior, we'd notice), and of course it would be great if for some reason they suddenly turned around. I still would think we cannot just forget who killed who, because it's an important question. I agree with Kevin MacDonald that Jews were a necessary but not sufficient condition for the current disaster, and I'd think it warrants at least a discussion. I wouldn't fully be happy if Jews turned around, led us back from the edge of the precipice, and then we would forget all that was bad. We should discuss what happened lest it gets repeated.

Actually Jews, Greeks, and Italians are more closely related to each other than Greeks and Italians are to populations like the Irish, Swedes, Orcadians, and Russians:

As I said, family relations don't work that way. Why should racialism/nationalism (which are just extended forms of familism) work that way?

Although I know it's totally irrational from a purely racial concentric circle loyalist point of view, as a Hungarian I do feel some attachment to Hungarian Jews and sometimes even Hungarian Gypsies, and a bit even to European Ashkenazy Jews. I know they contributed to European culture, and I don't want to see them destroyed. But if given the choice, I'd rather see them destroyed than us gentile whites. And whatever happens, I want their roles in the current suicidal trends of Western civilization discussed. Because of their influence, I don't think there's a both intelligent and honest way to stop that conversation by changing the subject to class, or to white gentile traitors (there's plenty of them, yes, and I do want to discuss them, too), or whatever.

Percentages do matter, and Jews are way more prominent in immigration activism (or any other political activism) than even their numbers among billionaires would indicate, so you simply cannot compare Sheldon Adelson to Bill Gates: the latter is a traitor, but the former is a Jewish ethnic activist, who spends more money on political campaigns than Gates, and so probably has more political influence. Gates's priorities are simply different, he doesn't spend as much on buying politicians for specific foreign policy and immigration goals.

I can imagine a world where there were only gentile billionaires, and where those billionaires were 100% pro-immigration, but simply didn't care enough to push it through populist politicians who would choose anti-immigration positions as the safest bet with voters.

Again: we don't know. Maybe Kevin MacDonald is correct and Jews were a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of the Suicide of the West. Or maybe he's incorrect and it would have happened without Jews anyway, as Peter Frost seems to suggest. We need to discuss it and probably research needs to be done (not just by MacDonald but by others who want to prove him wrong) before we can decide.

Because of differential selection, Jews might be more closely related to Italians and Greeks, and yet still Greeks might be more similar to Scandinavians.

A case in point are Irish Travellers. They are more closely related to the Irish, but in many respects are less similar to them than they are to the totally unrelated Gypsies.

Pygmy groups across the globe are often more similar to each other (due to convergent evolution) than they are to closely related non-Pygmy groups.

An even more extreme example is canine venereal sarcoma, which is more closely related to dogs than it is to anything else, yet I'd think dogs are more similar to mice or elephants or whales than they are to canine venereal sarcoma.

In Nazi Germany, Jews were not 'white'. And most 'Slavs' weren't truly 'white' either.

And even among populations considered as white, some were seen as lower-grade white while others were seen as higher-grade white.

During Roman times, the Romans looked down on Northern Europeans as barbaric whites. During the modern era, the lighter-skinned Northerners looked down on southern Europeans as less pure. Swarthy and tainted by other blood. Hitler told Mussolini that Italians were white but inferior due to some black blood. The conversation must have been like in True Romance.

In America, there were some Wasps who were reluctant to see certain white ethnics are truly white. And even among those who did see them as whites, there was a tendency to look upon some whites--especially the swarthy ones--as lesser whites.

And even among Jews, there was the western Jew vs eastern Jew thing.

I known Polish-American friends who hate the idea of 'white guilt'. They see Poles as having conquered no part of Africa, Asia, or Middle East. If anything, Poles got conquered by Germans and Russians. But they come to America and suddenly they are burdened with 'white guilt' and 'white privilege'. But unlike Jews, they don't have the media power to cry and bitch about it. So, they fume in silence. (Given Nazi German hell over Poland, you'd think Poles would hate Germany more. But Poles hate Russia more due to historical and geographical reasons. And cultural and economic ones. Poles geographically gained from Germany but lost land to Russia after WWII. Though Germans did horrible things, Germans are advanced, and Poles look up to productive and clean Germans. They despise the sloppy and barbaric Russians. Because Poles are Slavs, they don't want to be associated with the Other Slavs, the lowlife Russians. They want to be seen as the good Slavs, the Catholics who are closer to the West. Also, after WWII, 5o yrs of Soviet occupation didn't endear Poles to Russians. There are 'white' issues among Poles. In a way, Polish attitude toward Russians is victim-centered. "They conquered and oppressed us for too long." But the attitude also has traces of racial superiority. "We Poles are purer whites than those Russians with dirty Tartar-Mongol blood." So, Poles want to identify with 'whiter' Western Europe, but this is ironic since it is now Western Europe that has embraced multi-culti mania to Africanize and Islamize Europe.)

Given all these nuances, Weiner's feelings about whiteness is certainly understandable. Among blacks, there were light-skinned ones who also had an ambivalent relation to both white community and black community. As lighter-skinned and generally smarter, they sought greater accessibility into white community. But there were limits to how far they could go. So, they identified with black identity. But they didn't want to be one with 'black trash' either.

To the extent that Weiner looks for nuances in the meaning of whiteness, he can be an interesting guy. Especially in America, different ethnics were members of a white race but also mutually suspicious and hostile at times. And then, you have groups like Lebanese who can pass for whites or may not be considered white. Steve Jobs grandparents rejected their daughter for having a child with a Middle Easterner. Was Steve Jobs white?

And of course, Italians and Jews had their own prejudices not only against wasps but other kinds of 'whites'. Who can forget the scene in Goodfellas where Tommy complains about 'in this day and age...'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfuQWqouaBY

In some ways, these distinctions are Old World, and these tensions were also part of the New World narrative(as it was in America that these various ethnic groups met each other for the first time. If not for America, how many Greeks would have rubbed shoulders with Poles or Swedes?) But as everyone had to start anew in America, the white ethnic blended together. Especially because so many immigrants were poor and not very literate, they looked to Wasp elites to define and dictate what it means to be American and white. So, various ethnic groups became 'white' in accordance to Wasp definition. They emulated waspness. Also, the black problem brought the whites together. Italians, Irish, and Poles may not have liked one another, but they feared blacks more. So, that had a unifying effect on whites. And over time, there was a lot of intermarrying and a kind of new whiteness did develop in America.

But Jews stood out. What all white groups had in common was Christian heritage. Jews were the sole exception. Also, if all white groups had in common certain hostile feelings about Jews based on suspicion, distrust, fear, envy, resentment. Just as blacks had a unifying effect on whites, Jews tended to have a unifying effect on white gentiles.

But Jews had one thing in common with the ethnics. They were all late immigrants. The Ellis Island people. So, Jews could play on the dichotomy of Wasps as Old Money and Old privilege vs Ethnics(Jews, Italians, Poles, Greeks, etc). as the upstarts and the rise of New America. Many ethnics were divided on this. They felt resentment against Old Money Wasp but they didn't trust Jews. Jews were different from other ethnics in that more of them arrived in America well-educated. While poorly educated Jews were common, there were also a good number of intellectual Jews among the immigrants. And Jews took schools more seriously. If other ethnics looked to Wasps to define Americanness and whiteness, Jews soon challenged Wasp authority in academia and media and began to forge a new narrative.

So, the politics of whiteness was never simple in America. Even among whites, the 'blonde' hash had different connotations. For Wasps, blondes mean 'our women'. For Italian-American men, it means the Nordic golden girl. Tony Montana the Cubano's hots for Michelle Pfeiffer. Portnoy and his lust for 'shikses'. So, there are sexual nuances and obsessions to whiteness.

If Weiner wants to deal with this, fine. The problem is he is nuanced about shades of whiteness but totally simpleminded about how Jews are one with the people of color. Sure, given the tragedies of the Jewish experience, one can find parallels between Jews and blacks, Jews and Chinese, Jews and Muslims, Jews and Mexicans. But there are huge differences too, as shown in Homicide by Mamet. Or Mamet's movie about Phil Specter who profited from black music but also had problems with the black race.

Also, the meaning of 'Hispanic', 'Asian', and 'Muslim' are even more problematic. Hispanic what? Spanish-Hispanic? Italian-Hispanic(as many immigrants from Brazil and Argentina are)? White Cuban Hispanic? Meso-American Hispanic? Just like fear of blacks pushed all white groups together, the image of Yanqui Imperialist brings all Hispanics together. And what is 'Asian'? East Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian? Pacific Islander? And given all the tensions and distrust among Asians in the Old World, the only reason why there is a united 'Asian community' is due to the image of 'white privilege' that is supposedly holding Asians down. (Various groups in China love to bash one another. Hong Kong people look down on Mainlanders as barbarians. There is no love lost between Indians and Pakistanis.) In reality, your average Asians wants to flee from blacks and live with whites. But the PC-approved idea is Asians must unite because 'white privilege' is out to get them. Generally, 'white privilege' seems eater to 'get Asians' by hiring them in high tech companies, but Asians don't want that image since it undermines the victim narrative that is so crucial to feeling righteous in America.

As for Muslim, it can be some white guy from Lebanon, black guy from Somalia, Iranian, Palestinian-American, and etc, none of whom see eye to eye on anything.

So, if Weiner wants to play this game of racial nuance, he has to stick with the rules. If he wants to say there's nuances to the rule of 'whiteness' and that Jewish whiteness is ambiguous, so far so good. But if he then wants to claim that Jews are comfortably one with the blacks and other people of color, that's just ridiculous. He's violating his own game of nuance.

It's like some Polish guy saying that since Germans looked down on his people, he's one with with the Amazonian Indians. Invoking nuance in one area to promote dogma in another is dishonest.

In Nazi Germany, Jews were not 'white'. And most 'Slavs' weren't truly 'white' either.

And even among populations considered as white, some were seen as lower-grade white while others were seen as higher-grade white.

During Roman times, the Romans looked down on Northern Europeans as barbaric whites. During the modern era, the lighter-skinned Northerners looked down on southern Europeans as less pure. Swarthy and tainted by other blood. Hitler told Mussolini that Italians were white but inferior due to some black blood. The conversation must have been like in True Romance.

In America, there were some Wasps who were reluctant to see certain white ethnics are truly white. And even among those who did see them as whites, there was a tendency to look upon some whites--especially the swarthy ones--as lesser whites.

And even among Jews, there was the western Jew vs eastern Jew thing.

I known Polish-American friends who hate the idea of 'white guilt'. They see Poles as having conquered no part of Africa, Asia, or Middle East. If anything, Poles got conquered by Germans and Russians. But they come to America and suddenly they are burdened with 'white guilt' and 'white privilege'. But unlike Jews, they don't have the media power to cry and bitch about it. So, they fume in silence. (Given Nazi German hell over Poland, you'd think Poles would hate Germany more. But Poles hate Russia more due to historical and geographical reasons. And cultural and economic ones. Poles geographically gained from Germany but lost land to Russia after WWII. Though Germans did horrible things, Germans are advanced, and Poles look up to productive and clean Germans. They despise the sloppy and barbaric Russians. Because Poles are Slavs, they don't want to be associated with the Other Slavs, the lowlife Russians. They want to be seen as the good Slavs, the Catholics who are closer to the West. Also, after WWII, 5o yrs of Soviet occupation didn't endear Poles to Russians. There are 'white' issues among Poles. In a way, Polish attitude toward Russians is victim-centered. "They conquered and oppressed us for too long." But the attitude also has traces of racial superiority. "We Poles are purer whites than those Russians with dirty Tartar-Mongol blood." So, Poles want to identify with 'whiter' Western Europe, but this is ironic since it is now Western Europe that has embraced multi-culti mania to Africanize and Islamize Europe.)

Given all these nuances, Weiner's feelings about whiteness is certainly understandable. Among blacks, there were light-skinned ones who also had an ambivalent relation to both white community and black community. As lighter-skinned and generally smarter, they sought greater accessibility into white community. But there were limits to how far they could go. So, they identified with black identity. But they didn't want to be one with 'black trash' either.

To the extent that Weiner looks for nuances in the meaning of whiteness, he can be an interesting guy. Especially in America, different ethnics were members of a white race but also mutually suspicious and hostile at times. And then, you have groups like Lebanese who can pass for whites or may not be considered white. Steve Jobs grandparents rejected their daughter for having a child with a Middle Easterner. Was Steve Jobs white?

And of course, Italians and Jews had their own prejudices not only against wasps but other kinds of 'whites'. Who can forget the scene in Goodfellas where Tommy complains about 'in this day and age...'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfuQWqouaBY

In some ways, these distinctions are Old World, and these tensions were also part of the New World narrative(as it was in America that these various ethnic groups met each other for the first time. If not for America, how many Greeks would have rubbed shoulders with Poles or Swedes?) But as everyone had to start anew in America, the white ethnic blended together. Especially because so many immigrants were poor and not very literate, they looked to Wasp elites to define and dictate what it means to be American and white. So, various ethnic groups became 'white' in accordance to Wasp definition. They emulated waspness. Also, the black problem brought the whites together. Italians, Irish, and Poles may not have liked one another, but they feared blacks more. So, that had a unifying effect on whites. And over time, there was a lot of intermarrying and a kind of new whiteness did develop in America.

But Jews stood out. What all white groups had in common was Christian heritage. Jews were the sole exception. Also, if all white groups had in common certain hostile feelings about Jews based on suspicion, distrust, fear, envy, resentment. Just as blacks had a unifying effect on whites, Jews tended to have a unifying effect on white gentiles.

But Jews had one thing in common with the ethnics. They were all late immigrants. The Ellis Island people. So, Jews could play on the dichotomy of Wasps as Old Money and Old privilege vs Ethnics(Jews, Italians, Poles, Greeks, etc). as the upstarts and the rise of New America. Many ethnics were divided on this. They felt resentment against Old Money Wasp but they didn't trust Jews. Jews were different from other ethnics in that more of them arrived in America well-educated. While poorly educated Jews were common, there were also a good number of intellectual Jews among the immigrants. And Jews took schools more seriously. If other ethnics looked to Wasps to define Americanness and whiteness, Jews soon challenged Wasp authority in academia and media and began to forge a new narrative.

So, the politics of whiteness was never simple in America. Even among whites, the 'blonde' hash had different connotations. For Wasps, blondes mean 'our women'. For Italian-American men, it means the Nordic golden girl. Tony Montana the Cubano's hots for Michelle Pfeiffer. Portnoy and his lust for 'shikses'. So, there are sexual nuances and obsessions to whiteness.

If Weiner wants to deal with this, fine. The problem is he is nuanced about shades of whiteness but totally simpleminded about how Jews are one with the people of color. Sure, given the tragedies of the Jewish experience, one can find parallels between Jews and blacks, Jews and Chinese, Jews and Muslims, Jews and Mexicans. But there are huge differences too, as shown in Homicide by Mamet. Or Mamet's movie about Phil Specter who profited from black music but also had problems with the black race.

Also, the meaning of 'Hispanic', 'Asian', and 'Muslim' are even more problematic. Hispanic what? Spanish-Hispanic? Italian-Hispanic(as many immigrants from Brazil and Argentina are)? White Cuban Hispanic? Meso-American Hispanic? Just like fear of blacks pushed all white groups together, the image of Yanqui Imperialist brings all Hispanics together. And what is 'Asian'? East Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian? Pacific Islander? And given all the tensions and distrust among Asians in the Old World, the only reason why there is a united 'Asian community' is due to the image of 'white privilege' that is supposedly holding Asians down. (Various groups in China love to bash one another. Hong Kong people look down on Mainlanders as barbarians. There is no love lost between Indians and Pakistanis.) In reality, your average Asians wants to flee from blacks and live with whites. But the PC-approved idea is Asians must unite because 'white privilege' is out to get them. Generally, 'white privilege' seems eater to 'get Asians' by hiring them in high tech companies, but Asians don't want that image since it undermines the victim narrative that is so crucial to feeling righteous in America.

As for Muslim, it can be some white guy from Lebanon, black guy from Somalia, Iranian, Palestinian-American, and etc, none of whom see eye to eye on anything.

So, if Weiner wants to play this game of racial nuance, he has to stick with the rules. If he wants to say there's nuances to the rule of 'whiteness' and that Jewish whiteness is ambiguous, so far so good. But if he then wants to claim that Jews are comfortably one with the blacks and other people of color, that's just ridiculous. He's violating his own game of nuance.

It's like some Polish guy saying that since Germans looked down on his people, he's one with with the Amazonian Indians. Invoking nuance in one area to promote dogma in another is dishonest.

there was a tendency to look upon some whites–especially the swarthy ones–as lesser whites.

LOL. There are people out there who will not consider someone to be “white”, merely because their skin is of a darker shade.

Besides, I wouldn't be caught dead riding a subway. I'm an American, and Americans drive cars or trucks. But I do have to admit, if I was forced to ride a subway I'd sure as hell be carrying a gun like our curly-haired friend in that story.

Besides, I wouldn’t be caught dead riding a subway. I’m an American, and Americans drive cars or trucks.

The French invented the automobile, and Germans the superhighway, but it was Americans who gave the world the streetcar. In Richmond, Va, to be exact.

Boston and New York were three [sic] of the world’s earliest subway systems. Most of the world’s first undergrounds were private enterprises. (August Belmont even had his own private subway car. Hey, that was a perk of any railroad president.)

Highways, in contrast, are downright communist. The interstate going through my neighborhood was built mostly on stolen land. The locals get their revenge with a 45mph limit.

As I said, family relations don’t work that way. Why should racialism/nationalism (which are just extended forms of familism) work that way?

Although I know it’s totally irrational from a purely racial concentric circle loyalist point of view, as a Hungarian I do feel some attachment to Hungarian Jews and sometimes even Hungarian Gypsies, and a bit even to European Ashkenazy Jews. I know they contributed to European culture, and I don’t want to see them destroyed. But if given the choice, I’d rather see them destroyed than us gentile whites. And whatever happens, I want their roles in the current suicidal trends of Western civilization discussed. Because of their influence, I don’t think there’s a both intelligent and honest way to stop that conversation by changing the subject to class, or to white gentile traitors (there’s plenty of them, yes, and I do want to discuss them, too), or whatever.

Percentages do matter, and Jews are way more prominent in immigration activism (or any other political activism) than even their numbers among billionaires would indicate, so you simply cannot compare Sheldon Adelson to Bill Gates: the latter is a traitor, but the former is a Jewish ethnic activist, who spends more money on political campaigns than Gates, and so probably has more political influence. Gates’s priorities are simply different, he doesn’t spend as much on buying politicians for specific foreign policy and immigration goals.

I can imagine a world where there were only gentile billionaires, and where those billionaires were 100% pro-immigration, but simply didn’t care enough to push it through populist politicians who would choose anti-immigration positions as the safest bet with voters.

Again: we don’t know. Maybe Kevin MacDonald is correct and Jews were a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of the Suicide of the West. Or maybe he’s incorrect and it would have happened without Jews anyway, as Peter Frost seems to suggest. We need to discuss it and probably research needs to be done (not just by MacDonald but by others who want to prove him wrong) before we can decide.

Mad Men was one of the most crypto-conservative shows to breakthrough to the mainstream in recent years. Compared with other shows, it's mostly a celebration of Straight White Males being Straight White Males and being loved for it (even by Jewish women).

Compare it to e.g. Joss Whedon's feminist schlock that uses e.g. what liberals refer to as "numinous negro" main characters, like Shepherd Book.

Matthew Weiner being motivated by some weird Jewish anxieties produces more pro-White-male, pro-Steve-Sailer material than is produced by mainstream NW euros like Joss Whedon.

Mad Men was one of the most crypto-conservative shows to breakthrough to the mainstream in recent years.

I think its more a case like Archie Bunker and Michael Keaton with people not getting the deconstructionism and identifying with the bad guys.

"I think its more a case like Archie Bunker and Michael Keaton with people not getting the deconstructionism and identifying with the bad guys."

All in the Family and Family Ties got ten times the audience of Mad Men. Mad Men got the well--educated audience that gets all the red herrings but doesn't understand they're chains are being yanked. I doubt if Weiner himself fully gets the ironies. As I wrote in Taki's in 2009:

Is Mad Men a satire on the old WASP-run America? Or is it, more daringly, a satire on the new America watching the old America?

Neither, really.

In setting and characters, Mad Men is a de-satirized, minor key riff on the musical comedy How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. (Indeed, Robert Morse, who won a Tony in 1962 for his role as the social-climbing young VP of Advertising in How to Succeed, plays senior partner Bertram Cooper in Mad Men).

Weiner has the fetishistic, obsessive-compulsive observational skills to be a great satirist, but his heart’s just not in it. He’s a nostalgist.

Satire, from Swift onward, has been a Tory art form. In contrast, Weiner, at least consciously, identifies with the triumph of progressive liberalism. He is the loyal son of the kind of hard-working, left-leaning Jewish family (his father is a prominent neurologist, his mother a housewife and attorney) whose conventional wisdom has come to dominate our culture so thoroughly that, at least in his copious interviews, neither Weiner nor his interviewers appear to notice many of the ironies of Mad Men.

As a social commentator, Weiner is on the winning side in the culture war. Yet, as an artist, he senses a void in the brave new America. While he may lack the vocabulary to articulate it, this longing helps give Mad Men its romantic aura that lifts it above its own soap operaish and soft porn tendencies.

Weiner, who has a wife and four sons, is at least aware, however, that he finds feminism a hoax. (This same heresy added interest to the 1980s television serial about the advertising business, thirtysomething, which was created by two otherwise liberal Jewish family men, Ed Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz.)

Consider the interview in Variety in which Weiner is asked a standard question: “How much of the show’s take on gender roles is rooted in your own upbringing as someone born in 1965?” In response, he wanders around for 867 words trying to explain, without being so lucid that he gets himself Larry Summersized, that he’s learned—the hard way—that feminism is flapdoodle. In his strained verbiage, though, there’s one cogent sentence that explains much of Mad Men’s appeal to contemporary women:

Mad Men was one of the most crypto-conservative shows to breakthrough to the mainstream in recent years.

I think its more a case like Archie Bunker and Michael Keaton with people not getting the deconstructionism and identifying with the bad guys.

“I think its more a case like Archie Bunker and Michael Keaton with people not getting the deconstructionism and identifying with the bad guys.”

All in the Family and Family Ties got ten times the audience of Mad Men. Mad Men got the well–educated audience that gets all the red herrings but doesn’t understand they’re chains are being yanked. I doubt if Weiner himself fully gets the ironies. As I wrote in Taki’s in 2009:

Is Mad Men a satire on the old WASP-run America? Or is it, more daringly, a satire on the new America watching the old America?

Neither, really.

In setting and characters, Mad Men is a de-satirized, minor key riff on the musical comedy How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. (Indeed, Robert Morse, who won a Tony in 1962 for his role as the social-climbing young VP of Advertising in How to Succeed, plays senior partner Bertram Cooper in Mad Men).

Weiner has the fetishistic, obsessive-compulsive observational skills to be a great satirist, but his heart’s just not in it. He’s a nostalgist.

Satire, from Swift onward, has been a Tory art form. In contrast, Weiner, at least consciously, identifies with the triumph of progressive liberalism. He is the loyal son of the kind of hard-working, left-leaning Jewish family (his father is a prominent neurologist, his mother a housewife and attorney) whose conventional wisdom has come to dominate our culture so thoroughly that, at least in his copious interviews, neither Weiner nor his interviewers appear to notice many of the ironies of Mad Men.

As a social commentator, Weiner is on the winning side in the culture war. Yet, as an artist, he senses a void in the brave new America. While he may lack the vocabulary to articulate it, this longing helps give Mad Men its romantic aura that lifts it above its own soap operaish and soft porn tendencies.

Weiner, who has a wife and four sons, is at least aware, however, that he finds feminism a hoax. (This same heresy added interest to the 1980s television serial about the advertising business, thirtysomething, which was created by two otherwise liberal Jewish family men, Ed Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz.)

Consider the interview in Variety in which Weiner is asked a standard question: “How much of the show’s take on gender roles is rooted in your own upbringing as someone born in 1965?” In response, he wanders around for 867 words trying to explain, without being so lucid that he gets himself Larry Summersized, that he’s learned—the hard way—that feminism is flapdoodle. In his strained verbiage, though, there’s one cogent sentence that explains much of Mad Men’s appeal to contemporary women:

God's honest truth here. The first time I watched Season One of Mad Men was 2010. Three years after it's debut. I watched all in one weekend (DVD) and thought I was watching the best Pat Buchanan style pro-American propaganda. I thought I was watching a Great Patriotic documentary on how great America was in the 1950s. The First Season was the best and the last episode of that first season brought me to tears over how great America was and we blew it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv3DShxwjy0 "The Wheel" As Don pitches a new Kodak slide projector and leaves the Kodak marketing team speechless.

Because of differential selection, Jews might be more closely related to Italians and Greeks, and yet still Greeks might be more similar to Scandinavians.

A case in point are Irish Travellers. They are more closely related to the Irish, but in many respects are less similar to them than they are to the totally unrelated Gypsies.

Pygmy groups across the globe are often more similar to each other (due to convergent evolution) than they are to closely related non-Pygmy groups.

An even more extreme example is canine venereal sarcoma, which is more closely related to dogs than it is to anything else, yet I’d think dogs are more similar to mice or elephants or whales than they are to canine venereal sarcoma.

The point is genetic similarity. Jews, Italians, and Greeks are more closely related than they are to groups like Scandinavians, so it makes no sense to call Jews an "outlier" group of Europe unless you're prepared to call Greeks and Italians "outliers" of Europe as well, which is nonsensical.

As for culture or personality, I don't think Greeks are generally regarded as being more like Scandinavians than they are like Jews.

Sarcoma is a tumor, not an actual organism, so that's not an example at all, just a tasteless comment.

In Nazi Germany, Jews were not 'white'. And most 'Slavs' weren't truly 'white' either.

And even among populations considered as white, some were seen as lower-grade white while others were seen as higher-grade white.

During Roman times, the Romans looked down on Northern Europeans as barbaric whites. During the modern era, the lighter-skinned Northerners looked down on southern Europeans as less pure. Swarthy and tainted by other blood. Hitler told Mussolini that Italians were white but inferior due to some black blood. The conversation must have been like in True Romance.

In America, there were some Wasps who were reluctant to see certain white ethnics are truly white. And even among those who did see them as whites, there was a tendency to look upon some whites--especially the swarthy ones--as lesser whites.

And even among Jews, there was the western Jew vs eastern Jew thing.

I known Polish-American friends who hate the idea of 'white guilt'. They see Poles as having conquered no part of Africa, Asia, or Middle East. If anything, Poles got conquered by Germans and Russians. But they come to America and suddenly they are burdened with 'white guilt' and 'white privilege'. But unlike Jews, they don't have the media power to cry and bitch about it. So, they fume in silence. (Given Nazi German hell over Poland, you'd think Poles would hate Germany more. But Poles hate Russia more due to historical and geographical reasons. And cultural and economic ones. Poles geographically gained from Germany but lost land to Russia after WWII. Though Germans did horrible things, Germans are advanced, and Poles look up to productive and clean Germans. They despise the sloppy and barbaric Russians. Because Poles are Slavs, they don't want to be associated with the Other Slavs, the lowlife Russians. They want to be seen as the good Slavs, the Catholics who are closer to the West. Also, after WWII, 5o yrs of Soviet occupation didn't endear Poles to Russians. There are 'white' issues among Poles. In a way, Polish attitude toward Russians is victim-centered. "They conquered and oppressed us for too long." But the attitude also has traces of racial superiority. "We Poles are purer whites than those Russians with dirty Tartar-Mongol blood." So, Poles want to identify with 'whiter' Western Europe, but this is ironic since it is now Western Europe that has embraced multi-culti mania to Africanize and Islamize Europe.)

Given all these nuances, Weiner's feelings about whiteness is certainly understandable. Among blacks, there were light-skinned ones who also had an ambivalent relation to both white community and black community. As lighter-skinned and generally smarter, they sought greater accessibility into white community. But there were limits to how far they could go. So, they identified with black identity. But they didn't want to be one with 'black trash' either.

To the extent that Weiner looks for nuances in the meaning of whiteness, he can be an interesting guy. Especially in America, different ethnics were members of a white race but also mutually suspicious and hostile at times. And then, you have groups like Lebanese who can pass for whites or may not be considered white. Steve Jobs grandparents rejected their daughter for having a child with a Middle Easterner. Was Steve Jobs white?

And of course, Italians and Jews had their own prejudices not only against wasps but other kinds of 'whites'. Who can forget the scene in Goodfellas where Tommy complains about 'in this day and age...'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfuQWqouaBY

In some ways, these distinctions are Old World, and these tensions were also part of the New World narrative(as it was in America that these various ethnic groups met each other for the first time. If not for America, how many Greeks would have rubbed shoulders with Poles or Swedes?) But as everyone had to start anew in America, the white ethnic blended together. Especially because so many immigrants were poor and not very literate, they looked to Wasp elites to define and dictate what it means to be American and white. So, various ethnic groups became 'white' in accordance to Wasp definition. They emulated waspness. Also, the black problem brought the whites together. Italians, Irish, and Poles may not have liked one another, but they feared blacks more. So, that had a unifying effect on whites. And over time, there was a lot of intermarrying and a kind of new whiteness did develop in America.

But Jews stood out. What all white groups had in common was Christian heritage. Jews were the sole exception. Also, if all white groups had in common certain hostile feelings about Jews based on suspicion, distrust, fear, envy, resentment. Just as blacks had a unifying effect on whites, Jews tended to have a unifying effect on white gentiles.

But Jews had one thing in common with the ethnics. They were all late immigrants. The Ellis Island people. So, Jews could play on the dichotomy of Wasps as Old Money and Old privilege vs Ethnics(Jews, Italians, Poles, Greeks, etc). as the upstarts and the rise of New America. Many ethnics were divided on this. They felt resentment against Old Money Wasp but they didn't trust Jews. Jews were different from other ethnics in that more of them arrived in America well-educated. While poorly educated Jews were common, there were also a good number of intellectual Jews among the immigrants. And Jews took schools more seriously. If other ethnics looked to Wasps to define Americanness and whiteness, Jews soon challenged Wasp authority in academia and media and began to forge a new narrative.

So, the politics of whiteness was never simple in America. Even among whites, the 'blonde' hash had different connotations. For Wasps, blondes mean 'our women'. For Italian-American men, it means the Nordic golden girl. Tony Montana the Cubano's hots for Michelle Pfeiffer. Portnoy and his lust for 'shikses'. So, there are sexual nuances and obsessions to whiteness.

If Weiner wants to deal with this, fine. The problem is he is nuanced about shades of whiteness but totally simpleminded about how Jews are one with the people of color. Sure, given the tragedies of the Jewish experience, one can find parallels between Jews and blacks, Jews and Chinese, Jews and Muslims, Jews and Mexicans. But there are huge differences too, as shown in Homicide by Mamet. Or Mamet's movie about Phil Specter who profited from black music but also had problems with the black race.

Also, the meaning of 'Hispanic', 'Asian', and 'Muslim' are even more problematic. Hispanic what? Spanish-Hispanic? Italian-Hispanic(as many immigrants from Brazil and Argentina are)? White Cuban Hispanic? Meso-American Hispanic? Just like fear of blacks pushed all white groups together, the image of Yanqui Imperialist brings all Hispanics together. And what is 'Asian'? East Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian? Pacific Islander? And given all the tensions and distrust among Asians in the Old World, the only reason why there is a united 'Asian community' is due to the image of 'white privilege' that is supposedly holding Asians down. (Various groups in China love to bash one another. Hong Kong people look down on Mainlanders as barbarians. There is no love lost between Indians and Pakistanis.) In reality, your average Asians wants to flee from blacks and live with whites. But the PC-approved idea is Asians must unite because 'white privilege' is out to get them. Generally, 'white privilege' seems eater to 'get Asians' by hiring them in high tech companies, but Asians don't want that image since it undermines the victim narrative that is so crucial to feeling righteous in America.

As for Muslim, it can be some white guy from Lebanon, black guy from Somalia, Iranian, Palestinian-American, and etc, none of whom see eye to eye on anything.

So, if Weiner wants to play this game of racial nuance, he has to stick with the rules. If he wants to say there's nuances to the rule of 'whiteness' and that Jewish whiteness is ambiguous, so far so good. But if he then wants to claim that Jews are comfortably one with the blacks and other people of color, that's just ridiculous. He's violating his own game of nuance.

It's like some Polish guy saying that since Germans looked down on his people, he's one with with the Amazonian Indians. Invoking nuance in one area to promote dogma in another is dishonest.

Was Steve Jobs white?

If “Rolling Stone” can deride Ralph Nader as “an uptight white guy” then the whites can claim Jobs.

Genetically speaking, Jews are an outlier group in Europe, but they also don't cluster well with Middle Easterners. They are a group in between the two, and are in many respects closer to Europeans than to Middle Easterners. In many respects (because of both drift and differential selection) they are quite a bit different from both. Berlusconi or Putin are closer related to me than Netanyahu, but Netanyahu is closer related to me than King Abdullah of Jordan.

In a concentric circle of loyalty, I'd be more loyal to Italians, Poles or Swedes than to Jews, but more loyal to Jews than to Iraqi Arabs. I'd be roughly as loyal to Jews as to Turks maybe. Of course, real life doesn't work that way. People's family loyalties are somewhat arbitrary. I'm equally related to all cousins (actually, that's not exactly true because of how genetic inheritance works), but some of my cousins are closer to me than others. I have a cousin with whom I rarely if ever talked to in my life, whereas with some of my cousins I talk to at least once every few months, even though we live in different countries. Why should we expect nationalism or racialism (which is basically a kind of super-extended familism) to be any different?

I also don't think it helps Jews in the eyes of racially conscious whites if they are white. If they are white, than they are also majority traitors. All of their ethnic organizations are traitors to the white cause. I haven't even seen a Jewish organization anywhere that didn't promote multiculturalism. Pro-Israel nationalist activism is correlated with pro-immigration activism. Politically active billionaires who donate to Israeli causes also donate to pro-immigration causes. In other words, for Jews, being racially conscious rarely leads to anti-immigrationism, and most politically active Jews are both nationalists (as Jews) and pro-immigration (in America and Europe, but only pro-Jewish immigration in Israel). If I view them as just belonging to a different race and being loyal to that different race, then I could at least accept it. If I view them as belonging to the very same race as I do, then they are traitors. In most people's eyes, being a traitor is worse than being a member of another tribe.

Also, regardless of what one thinks of Jews, whether enemies or traitors (the large majority of them, at any rate), on the personal level many could be pleasant acquaintances. Some of them are commenting here (although they should spend less of their energies trying to persuade us that Jews are not so bad, after all, and more of their energies trying to persuade their fellow Jews that they should change their ways - believe me, if Jews changed their behavior, we'd notice), and of course it would be great if for some reason they suddenly turned around. I still would think we cannot just forget who killed who, because it's an important question. I agree with Kevin MacDonald that Jews were a necessary but not sufficient condition for the current disaster, and I'd think it warrants at least a discussion. I wouldn't fully be happy if Jews turned around, led us back from the edge of the precipice, and then we would forget all that was bad. We should discuss what happened lest it gets repeated.

Actually, I try in person, quite a bit, but I have very little influence in real life. I could spend my whole life advocating against, say, immigration and still not make as much of a splash as Sheldon Adelson.

It’s like the honest black guy–are you really going to be able to get your ghetto cousins to stop banging and slanging?

I didn't want to pick on you, your comments are always worth to read and contribute to the discussion here, so I didn't really have you in mind when I wrote that.

My point was simply that the ongoing Suicide of the West needs discussion as to its ethnic origins (whether Jews are and were a necessary but not sufficient element, fans cheering for something not of their making, or simply bystanders), and I don't think there's a both intelligent and honest way to stop the discussion in its tracks by changing the subject to class or anything like that. (Not that there's no need to discuss class and other factors.) It doesn't mean that at the end, Jews will prove to be a necessary element for all this, just that at this point I cannot really see how this could be ruled out. And if it cannot be ruled out then we cannot say we shouldn't talk about it.

I also have some arguments that on average, Jews are more leftist than gentile whites. And even otherwise (regarding Israel far rightist and nationalist) Jewish ethnic activists are pushing for leftist suicidal policies for gentile white countries. In fact, it would be difficult for me to name just one Jewish nationalist who is taking a stand against suicidal policies in white countries. Sure, there's Paul Gottfried.

So I think that even at this point the 'bystander' option has very little chance of being true. I'd bet that it's either Jews pushing for something which would have happened anyway (that makes them an enemy, even if an ineffectual one), or them being the culprits.

"I think its more a case like Archie Bunker and Michael Keaton with people not getting the deconstructionism and identifying with the bad guys."

All in the Family and Family Ties got ten times the audience of Mad Men. Mad Men got the well--educated audience that gets all the red herrings but doesn't understand they're chains are being yanked. I doubt if Weiner himself fully gets the ironies. As I wrote in Taki's in 2009:

Is Mad Men a satire on the old WASP-run America? Or is it, more daringly, a satire on the new America watching the old America?

Neither, really.

In setting and characters, Mad Men is a de-satirized, minor key riff on the musical comedy How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. (Indeed, Robert Morse, who won a Tony in 1962 for his role as the social-climbing young VP of Advertising in How to Succeed, plays senior partner Bertram Cooper in Mad Men).

Weiner has the fetishistic, obsessive-compulsive observational skills to be a great satirist, but his heart’s just not in it. He’s a nostalgist.

Satire, from Swift onward, has been a Tory art form. In contrast, Weiner, at least consciously, identifies with the triumph of progressive liberalism. He is the loyal son of the kind of hard-working, left-leaning Jewish family (his father is a prominent neurologist, his mother a housewife and attorney) whose conventional wisdom has come to dominate our culture so thoroughly that, at least in his copious interviews, neither Weiner nor his interviewers appear to notice many of the ironies of Mad Men.

As a social commentator, Weiner is on the winning side in the culture war. Yet, as an artist, he senses a void in the brave new America. While he may lack the vocabulary to articulate it, this longing helps give Mad Men its romantic aura that lifts it above its own soap operaish and soft porn tendencies.

Weiner, who has a wife and four sons, is at least aware, however, that he finds feminism a hoax. (This same heresy added interest to the 1980s television serial about the advertising business, thirtysomething, which was created by two otherwise liberal Jewish family men, Ed Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz.)

Consider the interview in Variety in which Weiner is asked a standard question: “How much of the show’s take on gender roles is rooted in your own upbringing as someone born in 1965?” In response, he wanders around for 867 words trying to explain, without being so lucid that he gets himself Larry Summersized, that he’s learned—the hard way—that feminism is flapdoodle. In his strained verbiage, though, there’s one cogent sentence that explains much of Mad Men’s appeal to contemporary women:

“What’s sexist in the office is fuel in the bedroom.”

http://takimag.com/article/man_men/print#ixzz3b36mPbIi

God’s honest truth here. The first time I watched Season One of Mad Men was 2010. Three years after it’s debut. I watched all in one weekend (DVD) and thought I was watching the best Pat Buchanan style pro-American propaganda. I thought I was watching a Great Patriotic documentary on how great America was in the 1950s. The First Season was the best and the last episode of that first season brought me to tears over how great America was and we blew it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv3DShxwjy0 “The Wheel” As Don pitches a new Kodak slide projector and leaves the Kodak marketing team speechless.

"I think its more a case like Archie Bunker and Michael Keaton with people not getting the deconstructionism and identifying with the bad guys."

All in the Family and Family Ties got ten times the audience of Mad Men. Mad Men got the well--educated audience that gets all the red herrings but doesn't understand they're chains are being yanked. I doubt if Weiner himself fully gets the ironies. As I wrote in Taki's in 2009:

Is Mad Men a satire on the old WASP-run America? Or is it, more daringly, a satire on the new America watching the old America?

Neither, really.

In setting and characters, Mad Men is a de-satirized, minor key riff on the musical comedy How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. (Indeed, Robert Morse, who won a Tony in 1962 for his role as the social-climbing young VP of Advertising in How to Succeed, plays senior partner Bertram Cooper in Mad Men).

Weiner has the fetishistic, obsessive-compulsive observational skills to be a great satirist, but his heart’s just not in it. He’s a nostalgist.

Satire, from Swift onward, has been a Tory art form. In contrast, Weiner, at least consciously, identifies with the triumph of progressive liberalism. He is the loyal son of the kind of hard-working, left-leaning Jewish family (his father is a prominent neurologist, his mother a housewife and attorney) whose conventional wisdom has come to dominate our culture so thoroughly that, at least in his copious interviews, neither Weiner nor his interviewers appear to notice many of the ironies of Mad Men.

As a social commentator, Weiner is on the winning side in the culture war. Yet, as an artist, he senses a void in the brave new America. While he may lack the vocabulary to articulate it, this longing helps give Mad Men its romantic aura that lifts it above its own soap operaish and soft porn tendencies.

Weiner, who has a wife and four sons, is at least aware, however, that he finds feminism a hoax. (This same heresy added interest to the 1980s television serial about the advertising business, thirtysomething, which was created by two otherwise liberal Jewish family men, Ed Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz.)

Consider the interview in Variety in which Weiner is asked a standard question: “How much of the show’s take on gender roles is rooted in your own upbringing as someone born in 1965?” In response, he wanders around for 867 words trying to explain, without being so lucid that he gets himself Larry Summersized, that he’s learned—the hard way—that feminism is flapdoodle. In his strained verbiage, though, there’s one cogent sentence that explains much of Mad Men’s appeal to contemporary women:

“What’s sexist in the office is fuel in the bedroom.”

http://takimag.com/article/man_men/print#ixzz3b36mPbIi

Weiner has the fetishistic, obsessive-compulsive observational skills to be a great satirist, but his heart’s just not in it. He’s a nostalgist.

Weiner's using the academically hot definition of "Whiteness," in which Whiteness equals normality. It's been pretty trendy for a while now.Cf things like How The Irish Became White, etc. Heck, I had an Americanist colleague once tell me, in all seriousness, that the Irish Catholics didn't really become White until JFK was inaugurated.Until then, they were only White with an asterisk.

I know you're making a joke, but the Irish were always considered "White". Ethnic groups always like to believe they were discriminated against back in the "old days" - its a subtle form of boasting. I.e. - "Look at all we achieved - and we did it while being "oppressed"! We really are a great bunch aren't we? "

As Steve has mentioned before, Ultra orthodox Jews act as a demographic reserve for Jews. The town of Kiryas Joel, outside NYC, is an example. Israel is also fairly well protected, and I don't see it getting blown to smithereens any time soon.
Meanwhile France, England, and Switzerland are all experiencing demographic change, which could mean the unique cultures that developed in those places be replaced by another. Oddly enough, it appears Polish culture is the most protected, even though it has, as you said, been absorbed by its neighbours at various times.

Rappers Mac Miller and Riff Raff are Jewish, but they are always labeled as White rappers by the Hip Hop community and the African American community in general. I wonder how Matthew Weiner feels about Jewish rappers being referred to as White rappers.

Relative to black rappers they’re white. Relative to WASP-y Don Drapers of the world, Weiner is of color. Or maybe the thinking goes.

Even the ones from Ethiopia ? If you consider jews white then you will have to also label Turks and Arabs white as well. Jews originated from non white lands, despite the occasional jew with blue eyes and blonde hair (same with Turks and Arabs), they are mostly swarthy middle eastern in appearance and I don't consider that white.

Weiner and most American Jews are Ashkenazi Jews. A recent full genome sequencing study showed that Ashkenazi Jews are approximately half-southern European and half-Middle Eastern. But Middle Eastern populations themselves have changed over the past two thousand years since the ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews left. Most saliently, Muslim Middle Easterners have accumulated sub-Saharan admixture at levels much higher than is found in Christian Middle Easterners or Mizrahi Jews. In short, the Middle East was “whiter” two thousand years ago than it is now.

this whole anti-jew thing is yet another hilarious and sad aspect of the Dissident Right. So many commentators on these Dissident Right sites think that Jews are not white.

Pay attention to this:
Jews. Are. White.

Somewhere out there there is a Jew named Benjamin who was teased mercilessly in my junior high school because he had tight kinky hair, as kinky as any black mans. His complexion was pale. He did not look swarthy Israeli. We called him Brillo. Jews did the most teasing. So are Jews white and do they have a racial hierarchy within? Where the more Aryan looking Jews rule the high school pecking order? Especially within the girls desiring and envying the Jewish girls who were blonder and paler? I would say yes and similar to blacks.

Because of differential selection, Jews might be more closely related to Italians and Greeks, and yet still Greeks might be more similar to Scandinavians.

A case in point are Irish Travellers. They are more closely related to the Irish, but in many respects are less similar to them than they are to the totally unrelated Gypsies.

Pygmy groups across the globe are often more similar to each other (due to convergent evolution) than they are to closely related non-Pygmy groups.

An even more extreme example is canine venereal sarcoma, which is more closely related to dogs than it is to anything else, yet I'd think dogs are more similar to mice or elephants or whales than they are to canine venereal sarcoma.

The point is genetic similarity. Jews, Italians, and Greeks are more closely related than they are to groups like Scandinavians, so it makes no sense to call Jews an “outlier” group of Europe unless you’re prepared to call Greeks and Italians “outliers” of Europe as well, which is nonsensical.

As for culture or personality, I don’t think Greeks are generally regarded as being more like Scandinavians than they are like Jews.

Sarcoma is a tumor, not an actual organism, so that’s not an example at all, just a tasteless comment.

People like Greeks and certain southern Europeans, at one level, are in a way outliers relative to the far northern people like Scandinavians. Greeks have more sub-Saharan DNA than other Europeans scientists show. Greeks in some early eras (Angel 1972), and at certain times show genetic links black Africans, such as genetic HLA features (Chromosome 6- with sub-Saharans- Hajjej 2011), Benin Sickle Cell syndrome (Ricaut et al 2008), certain shared cystic fibrosis mutations (Dork, et al 1998), to certain Y-chromosome markers- Europeans contain the E3b sub-group, which was derived from haplogroup E originating in sub-Saharan Africa (Frukadis 2008)

http://imageshack.us/a/img96/5216/e3be1b1bmigration.jpg

African DNA among the Greekshttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uuGHFa_EarY/VL3saUUDI7I/AAAAAAAABVA/UhyVo-fb_BU/s1600/African_hape_e3b_europe.jpg

Canine venereal sarcoma is a unicellular organism, and since you've mentioned Greg Cochran's name in this thread, I'm sure you are aware that Greg thinks it's a mammal. (I proposed in the comment section that we start using 'mammal' as a paraphyletic category instead, because to me it's just too much of a stretch to call a unicellular organism a mammal simply because it's descended from mammals.) Currently it's a parasite, and I don't know if it will ever evolve in any other direction (it might even go extinct), but that doesn't really matter for the purposes of this discussion.

I think my point is easily understood, whether you think it was tasteless or not. Some people think it's tasteless to compare humans (biological organisms) to other biological organisms, but obviously such comparisons cannot be avoided when we are talking about phylogenetic trees - for example whether Jews were outliers among Europeans, or whether dogs were more closely related to canine venereal sarcoma than they are to mice. As is obvious from my examples, an organism can surely resemble more its distant relatives than some of its close relatives if selection pressures were highly divergent. Jews in many respects more closely resemble other market dominant minorities than they do Greeks. Some Greeks fled Greece after the civil war in the 1940s, and a few hundred of these communist Greeks were settled in Hungary. I personally know some of them, and I'd say they resembled average Hungarians more than they did the Jews, for example in intellectual abilities, but some other respects, too. So I wouldn't think it was absurd to think that both Greeks and Scandinavians might actually be closer to our fictitious Average European than to Jews.

And of course you know that Irish Travellers are more closely related to the Irish than they are to anybody else (and vice versa), yet of course you understood my point that for everyday use it makes great sense to lump the Irish together with their distant cousins the Greeks and to create a separate category for the Travellers (or even lump them together with Gypsies of Indian origins). Will you also get indignant regarding whether someone is comparing Jews to Travellers, or will you instead just understand my point? (Which actually has very little to do with the fact that at present the Travellers, too, are parasites.)

Mad Men also is conservative in that it's one of the few shows on television that's actually about business. (Now that the Office is over, Silicon Valley and House of Lies are really the only other scripted shows about business). The typical socialists hollywood liberals will only depict businessman as rapacious capitalist villains. Weiner actually demonstrates a real respect for commerce and capitalism, and the work and talent required to be successful in those endeavors. Particularly noteworthy is that even the advertising industry, typically denounced as the most "worthless" and "non-value adding" economic activity, is generally depicted as making a positive contribution.

The story arc on The Office where Michael quit and started his own business was good and actually kind of realistic.

"Mad Men also is conservative in that it’s one of the few shows on television that’s actually about business."

Given the kinds of social policies Wall Street, Hollywood, and Las Vegas stand for, it's a bit too late to associate business with conservatism.

I don’t think anyone ever considers Hollywood as a microcosm for business in general. Most shows that deal with the business side of Hollywood focus on the unique aspects of it. Same with Wall Street and Vegas, for that matter.

I know you’re making a joke, but the Irish were always considered “White”. Ethnic groups always like to believe they were discriminated against back in the “old days” – its a subtle form of boasting. I.e. – “Look at all we achieved – and we did it while being “oppressed”! We really are a great bunch aren’t we? “

God's honest truth here. The first time I watched Season One of Mad Men was 2010. Three years after it's debut. I watched all in one weekend (DVD) and thought I was watching the best Pat Buchanan style pro-American propaganda. I thought I was watching a Great Patriotic documentary on how great America was in the 1950s. The First Season was the best and the last episode of that first season brought me to tears over how great America was and we blew it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv3DShxwjy0 "The Wheel" As Don pitches a new Kodak slide projector and leaves the Kodak marketing team speechless.

Mad Men - The CarouselMad Men first season finale, "The Wheel." Don pitches a campaign to Kodak for their new slide projector.Arguably the best few minutes of television, and certainly the best of Mad Men.

*****If you are going to watch any season of Mad Men see Season One. The soap opera content got larger after Season One. I read that more female writers and directors were brought in after Season One. So it became more female "issues" oriented.

I don't think anyone ever considers Hollywood as a microcosm for business in general. Most shows that deal with the business side of Hollywood focus on the unique aspects of it. Same with Wall Street and Vegas, for that matter.

One thing for sure, advertising business has been promoting decadence that does no favors for conservatism.

Even the ones from Ethiopia ? If you consider jews white then you will have to also label Turks and Arabs white as well. Jews originated from non white lands, despite the occasional jew with blue eyes and blonde hair (same with Turks and Arabs), they are mostly swarthy middle eastern in appearance and I don't consider that white.

This blog post by Gregory Cochran summarizes the Ashkenazi full genome sequencing work I mentioned in my earlier reply.

P.S. at the bottom of each post there is a "reply" button that will insert a link to the post you are replying to.

What about the founder of Communism?

Well now there you have a point. That’s not Weiner, but Marx sure has a lot of millions on his tab. Bu couldn’t we say that people like Engels share it too? I mean, good old Germanic Engels provided much research and even bankrolled Marx, though Marx still kept dodging bill collectors and dragging his family through hell.

Jesus was a Jew who spoke a Semitic language, and he lived at the same latitude as Babylon. I guess you think Jesus was non-white.

Jesus was probably about as white as the peoples of neighboring populations like Syrians, Arabs, what have you. Do you call Arabs white?

P.S., met many Jews named after Jesus lately? I shouldn't ask - I wouldn't be surprised to see a South American descendent of cryptos named Jesus.

I wonder how often Jesus Christ shows up in lists of famous Jews. Only time I see people mentioning his Jewishness is when they're addressing unreconstructed whites, or Christians trying to boost the appeal of their religion in the Jewish Century.

Jesus was probably about as white as the peoples of neighboring populations like Syrians, Arabs, what have you. Do you call Arabs white?

The Middle East at the time of Jesus was a lot lighter than today. Greg Cochran.

Yet [Ashkenazi] seem paler than you would expect as a 50-50 mix of Italians and Middle Easterners. First thing is that the Middle East isn’t what it used to be – more South Arabian and African ancestry…

Some Mizrahi Jews like this woman look lighter than a lot of Italians and Greeks, despite spending the last 2000 years living amongst an influx of South Arabian and African ancestry. So it seems far from clear that Jesus wasn’t as White as Southern Europeans.

I've noticed this about some Jews. Very intelligent and capable - but an odd, almost childlike naiveté - their imagination is severely stunted when it comes to imagining threats coming from people other than Europeans.

I wonder if the high IQ gets cancelled out in some way by this lack of common sense.

I've seen Jews who truly believe they have some special bond with a blacks employee or their Latina nanny, etc. They seem unable to process the fact that they are almost always in the dominant position in these sorts of relationships and that this may actually cause resentment - that whatever they think about themselves, others do see them as white.

There are real dangers in the world, but their defenses seem maladjusted in a fundamental way

I don't think this would apply so much to Isrealis! - just particular subset of left wing diaspora types

I’ve noticed this about some Jews. Very intelligent and capable – but an odd, almost childlike naiveté – their imagination is severely stunted when it comes to imagining threats coming from people other than Europeans.I wonder if the high IQ gets cancelled out in some way by this lack of common sense.

What you say is itself extremely naive. Who says they don’t recognize “threats?” Jews were among the earliest, most devastating opponents of affirmative action “quotas” for example, and in the 1960s defeated the black “community control” school movement in NYC with savage attacks and counterattacks. In NYC the Jewish mayor Ed Koch roundly attacked and counterattacked black opponents with glee, even calling anyone who would vote for Jesse Jackson “crazy.” Jews cheered on Republican mayor Rudy Guillani’s tenure. Giuliani consistently raised the level of his Jewish support over time, from 60 percent in his losing race in 1989 to 65 in his 1993 victory and 72 in his 1997 reelection. No one has been more conscious of their “white cred” than Jews.

.I’ve seen Jews who truly believe they have some special bond with a blacks employee or their Latina nanny, etc. They seem unable to process the fact that they are almost always in the dominant position in these sorts of relationships and that this may actually cause resentment – that whatever they think about themselves, others do see them as white.

This is not a “Jewish” problem. EVERY employer of domestic help, depending n how they treat the people who work for them, can achieve a certain closeness, though of course both parties usually know there are limits. In many cases a special bond is forged in the domestic sphere. It happens- its part of the package- and also everyone knows it has a practical limit. The boss ain’t gonna be happy to find out that “Jose” and the little princess planning to marry next fall. Sure there are limits.

But even aside from that, Black Caribbean immigrants who worked as domestics, and non-domestics in both London and NYC for example can tell you that it was Jews who helped them get a foothold with property rentals and purchases in certain parts of those cities where the welcome mat read “unwelcome.” Whether altruism or just plain good business, the bottom line was positive as far as those immigrants were concerned.

On the flipside of course are numerous conflicts. The typical complaint- of gouging “Jew” merchants, stingy pawnbrokers or uncaring slumlords, suggests that for other Jews there was no altruism involved at all. They didn’t/don’t give a damn about any Blacks, Asians or whoever. All that counted was the cash bottom line.

.There are real dangers in the world, but their defenses seem maladjusted in a fundamental way. I don’t think this would apply so much to Isrealis! – just particular subset of left wing diaspora types
Again, this is rather naive. Even liberal left-wing Jews watch out for the bottom line- they can be very well “white” when they want to, and do not hesitate to use that to their advantage when it suits them. No one has been more critical of other minorities than Jews, as massive amounts of documentation show. Just the “community control” school battles brought out the long knives, long sharpened on such criticism. As black activists found out, so-called “Jewish allies” were few and far between. In England Jewish frontbench opposition spokesman Sir Keith Joseph, urged the Jews of his constituency to support Margaret Thatcher’s immigration clampdown, and some Jews, when not in silent tacit support, even openly joined Enoch Powell’s race-baiting “National Front.” There has been a lot of LIP SERVICE about Jewish “solidarity” with other non-white groups, but the bottom line, in several cases is anything but solid.

Sailer may be right in the sense that Weiner may be part of the LIP SERVICE, faux “solidarity” tradition, but the bottom line is that Jews embrace whiteness, when it suits them. To their credit, SOME Jews did lend critical support to the US Civil Rights Movement.

Mad Men – The Carousel
Mad Men first season finale, “The Wheel.” Don pitches a campaign to Kodak for their new slide projector.
Arguably the best few minutes of television, and certainly the best of Mad Men.

*****If you are going to watch any season of Mad Men see Season One. The soap opera content got larger after Season One. I read that more female writers and directors were brought in after Season One. So it became more female “issues” oriented.

I very much enjoyed the first few hours of Season One of Mad Men. Then I got bored, but I always get bored after about six hours because I'm more interested in the "world creation" aspect and I pick up on that pretty fast and then move on to new things. I watched six hours of Breaking Bad and that was even better, but six hours is plenty. After about six hours of any serial, most things turn into soap operas, which is fine, but I'm deficient in the urge to care about the fates of fictional characters across protracted periods of time.

My father had one of those carousels. Something ironic I just realized: sharing vacation photos with them was a lot more social than sharing is today with Instagram and social media. Because when you used the slide projector, you were all in the same room together.

Genetically speaking, Jews are an outlier group in Europe, but they also don't cluster well with Middle Easterners. They are a group in between the two, and are in many respects closer to Europeans than to Middle Easterners. In many respects (because of both drift and differential selection) they are quite a bit different from both. Berlusconi or Putin are closer related to me than Netanyahu, but Netanyahu is closer related to me than King Abdullah of Jordan.

In a concentric circle of loyalty, I'd be more loyal to Italians, Poles or Swedes than to Jews, but more loyal to Jews than to Iraqi Arabs. I'd be roughly as loyal to Jews as to Turks maybe. Of course, real life doesn't work that way. People's family loyalties are somewhat arbitrary. I'm equally related to all cousins (actually, that's not exactly true because of how genetic inheritance works), but some of my cousins are closer to me than others. I have a cousin with whom I rarely if ever talked to in my life, whereas with some of my cousins I talk to at least once every few months, even though we live in different countries. Why should we expect nationalism or racialism (which is basically a kind of super-extended familism) to be any different?

I also don't think it helps Jews in the eyes of racially conscious whites if they are white. If they are white, than they are also majority traitors. All of their ethnic organizations are traitors to the white cause. I haven't even seen a Jewish organization anywhere that didn't promote multiculturalism. Pro-Israel nationalist activism is correlated with pro-immigration activism. Politically active billionaires who donate to Israeli causes also donate to pro-immigration causes. In other words, for Jews, being racially conscious rarely leads to anti-immigrationism, and most politically active Jews are both nationalists (as Jews) and pro-immigration (in America and Europe, but only pro-Jewish immigration in Israel). If I view them as just belonging to a different race and being loyal to that different race, then I could at least accept it. If I view them as belonging to the very same race as I do, then they are traitors. In most people's eyes, being a traitor is worse than being a member of another tribe.

Also, regardless of what one thinks of Jews, whether enemies or traitors (the large majority of them, at any rate), on the personal level many could be pleasant acquaintances. Some of them are commenting here (although they should spend less of their energies trying to persuade us that Jews are not so bad, after all, and more of their energies trying to persuade their fellow Jews that they should change their ways - believe me, if Jews changed their behavior, we'd notice), and of course it would be great if for some reason they suddenly turned around. I still would think we cannot just forget who killed who, because it's an important question. I agree with Kevin MacDonald that Jews were a necessary but not sufficient condition for the current disaster, and I'd think it warrants at least a discussion. I wouldn't fully be happy if Jews turned around, led us back from the edge of the precipice, and then we would forget all that was bad. We should discuss what happened lest it gets repeated.

I agree with Kevin MacDonald that Jews were a necessary but not sufficient condition for the current disaster… We should discuss what happened lest it gets repeated.

There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined “moral community” and only when the “morally worthless” are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.

And don’t blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century. With or without Jews, we would still be facing the dilemma that is facing us now.

Well now there you have a point. That’s not Weiner, but Marx sure has a lot of millions on his tab. Bu couldn’t we say that people like Engels share it too? I mean, good old Germanic Engels provided much research and even bankrolled Marx, though Marx still kept dodging bill collectors and dragging his family through hell.

Marx wasn't the founder of "Communism". Robert Owen was the founder of communism, and Lenin was the founder of "Communism".

The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined “moral community” and only when the “morally worthless” are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.

And don’t blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century.

This is empirically and theoretically untenable.

First, he begs the question: "By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant." But the question was whether we did it, whether someone else did it, or whether we and someone else did it together.

Second, it's not true that our moral system has been expanded (note the passive voice) to encompass the whole world; it hasn't. If it had been, then non-White races would be held to the same standard that the White race is, a standard that -- according to Frost -- appears to require racial suicide.

Third, the actual problem has completely eluded him. It's not that we're too inclusive; it's not that we fail to discriminate against nonself. It's that our moral code is inverted. Instead of a racial immune system that discriminates in favor of the self, we have an immune system that discriminates against the self. Unlike the propensity and capacity to build large societies involving high trust and cooperation among strangers (which has both advantages and disadvantages and which may be adaptive under some circumstances and maladaptive under others), an inverted immune system is entirely disadvantageous and could not have evolved. Theoretically it must be the result of outside influence.

Fourth, and anticlimactically, the empire building of the 19th century was largely a Jewish project. Has he never heard of Disraeli? Rothschild? Reuters? Oppenheimer? Sassoon?

I also mentioned Peter Frost's opinion in another comment in this thread.

As Ben Tillman mentioned, it's not that we extended the moral community to the whole world, because we don't hold third worlders to the same standards as we do ourselves. In the 16th century Spanish conquistadors were appalled at the Indios' practice of human sacrifice and many other things like that, and it justified - in their eyes - their mass enslavement. The same arguments were used to enslave Africans - they didn't live up to our moral standards, so we could do anything to them. So extending the moral community to the whole world actually doesn't necessarily lead to the present suicidal morality, one could argue it actually leads to the opposite.

Another point is that even if it was true that our moral system, when taken to its logical conclusion, would become a suicide pact, it still doesn't answer the question why we took our pre-existent moral system to its logical conclusion. After all, people don't usually take their moral systems to their logical conclusions. Even today's leftists don't do that, they preach environmental protection and immigration but then drive gas-guzzlers and practice white flight. A Hungarian parody hip-hop song about Hungarians' conversion to Christianity sums it up, "let's convert to this religion of love, and then let's dismember anybody who disagrees with it". There needs to be an explanation why Europeans took their moral system to its logical conclusion, even if that was its logical conclusion.

The point is genetic similarity. Jews, Italians, and Greeks are more closely related than they are to groups like Scandinavians, so it makes no sense to call Jews an "outlier" group of Europe unless you're prepared to call Greeks and Italians "outliers" of Europe as well, which is nonsensical.

As for culture or personality, I don't think Greeks are generally regarded as being more like Scandinavians than they are like Jews.

Sarcoma is a tumor, not an actual organism, so that's not an example at all, just a tasteless comment.

People like Greeks and certain southern Europeans, at one level, are in a way outliers relative to the far northern people like Scandinavians. Greeks have more sub-Saharan DNA than other Europeans scientists show. Greeks in some early eras (Angel 1972), and at certain times show genetic links black Africans, such as genetic HLA features (Chromosome 6- with sub-Saharans- Hajjej 2011), Benin Sickle Cell syndrome (Ricaut et al 2008), certain shared cystic fibrosis mutations (Dork, et al 1998), to certain Y-chromosome markers- Europeans contain the E3b sub-group, which was derived from haplogroup E originating in sub-Saharan Africa (Frukadis 2008)
African DNA among the Greeks

Naive uniparental haplogroup counting overestimates sub-Saharan African admixture in southern Europeans. There are years' worth of autosomal DNA studies looking at hundreds of thousands of loci across the genome to confirm that. One reason is that it takes only one ancestor at the right position in a family tree to confer a Y-chromosome haplogroup or mitochondrial DNA haplogroup into perpetuity. Most of the Early Farmers who carried Y-haplogroup E3b into Europe many thousands of years ago had at most very dilute sub-Saharan ancestry. Then consider that all dating estimates in these studies should be taken with a grain of salt. I've seen studies that estimated much older divergence times for E3b outside of Africa from E3b within sub-Saharan Africa than the studies you linked. If the divergence occurred more than 20,000 years ago, was anyone in Europe yet "white?" If anything, there is now evidence that the Early Farmers introduced the skin lightening mutations. The Hunter Gatherers were dark-skinned but light-eyed.

Mad Men - The CarouselMad Men first season finale, "The Wheel." Don pitches a campaign to Kodak for their new slide projector.Arguably the best few minutes of television, and certainly the best of Mad Men.

*****If you are going to watch any season of Mad Men see Season One. The soap opera content got larger after Season One. I read that more female writers and directors were brought in after Season One. So it became more female "issues" oriented.

“If you are going to watch any season of Mad Men see Season One.”

I very much enjoyed the first few hours of Season One of Mad Men. Then I got bored, but I always get bored after about six hours because I’m more interested in the “world creation” aspect and I pick up on that pretty fast and then move on to new things. I watched six hours of Breaking Bad and that was even better, but six hours is plenty. After about six hours of any serial, most things turn into soap operas, which is fine, but I’m deficient in the urge to care about the fates of fictional characters across protracted periods of time.

All these shows move too slow and are halfway predictable so I understand your take on them. I can only watch them if I am on the internet at the same time. I just watched the new Game of Thrones while perusing comments here at iSteve-Unz. No lie, but I don't watch much TV.

The thing I liked about Breaking Bad that I guess you didn't appreciate is how the writers let Mr. White and Pinkman succeed at the meth business and earn a lot of money. It's the opposite of how other series such as, say, Battlestar Galactica or Gilligan's Island were structured: with a quest that the protagonists aim for and never achieve, until maybe the series finale.

It would have been easier, in a way, and required less imagination, to keep White and Pinkman small timers who get knocked down a peg every time they try to advance, but, instead, the writers let them advance, and then explored what happened at the next level of success. Mr. White fulfills is monetary goal - then what happens? They show that.

Well now there you have a point. That's not Weiner, but Marx sure has a lot of millions on his tab. Bu couldn't we say that people like Engels share it too? I mean, good old Germanic Engels provided much research and even bankrolled Marx, though Marx still kept dodging bill collectors and dragging his family through hell.

People like Greeks and certain southern Europeans, at one level, are in a way outliers relative to the far northern people like Scandinavians. Greeks have more sub-Saharan DNA than other Europeans scientists show. Greeks in some early eras (Angel 1972), and at certain times show genetic links black Africans, such as genetic HLA features (Chromosome 6- with sub-Saharans- Hajjej 2011), Benin Sickle Cell syndrome (Ricaut et al 2008), certain shared cystic fibrosis mutations (Dork, et al 1998), to certain Y-chromosome markers- Europeans contain the E3b sub-group, which was derived from haplogroup E originating in sub-Saharan Africa (Frukadis 2008)

http://imageshack.us/a/img96/5216/e3be1b1bmigration.jpg

African DNA among the Greekshttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uuGHFa_EarY/VL3saUUDI7I/AAAAAAAABVA/UhyVo-fb_BU/s1600/African_hape_e3b_europe.jpg

Naive uniparental haplogroup counting overestimates sub-Saharan African admixture in southern Europeans. There are years’ worth of autosomal DNA studies looking at hundreds of thousands of loci across the genome to confirm that. One reason is that it takes only one ancestor at the right position in a family tree to confer a Y-chromosome haplogroup or mitochondrial DNA haplogroup into perpetuity. Most of the Early Farmers who carried Y-haplogroup E3b into Europe many thousands of years ago had at most very dilute sub-Saharan ancestry. Then consider that all dating estimates in these studies should be taken with a grain of salt. I’ve seen studies that estimated much older divergence times for E3b outside of Africa from E3b within sub-Saharan Africa than the studies you linked. If the divergence occurred more than 20,000 years ago, was anyone in Europe yet “white?” If anything, there is now evidence that the Early Farmers introduced the skin lightening mutations. The Hunter Gatherers were dark-skinned but light-eyed.

The data shows that sub-Saharan African DNA elements well embedded in place and shows up in certain southern European populations- everything from the cystic fibrosis mutations, to the traces of Benin sickle cell marker, to the HLA 6 data. Does this mean that all Greeks are 'Africans'? No, they are primarily a European population, with racial admixture from sub-Saharan Africans. The divergence times make no difference, for the African DNA markers are still there and quite detectable. And true, White skin is only a relatively recent occurrence. Those early Europeans looked more like sub-Saharan Africans, as also their limb proportions show. And while a combination of dark skin and blue or light colored eyes does not show up much at all in Europe anymore, it is not at all unusual in Africa.

http://imageshack.com/a/img837/6486/k892.jpg

And are you sure the early farmers from the Middle East brought lighter skin? According to whom?

I very much enjoyed the first few hours of Season One of Mad Men. Then I got bored, but I always get bored after about six hours because I'm more interested in the "world creation" aspect and I pick up on that pretty fast and then move on to new things. I watched six hours of Breaking Bad and that was even better, but six hours is plenty. After about six hours of any serial, most things turn into soap operas, which is fine, but I'm deficient in the urge to care about the fates of fictional characters across protracted periods of time.

All these shows move too slow and are halfway predictable so I understand your take on them. I can only watch them if I am on the internet at the same time. I just watched the new Game of Thrones while perusing comments here at iSteve-Unz. No lie, but I don’t watch much TV.

I often am on the Internet when I watch TV, but I'm glad I wasn't for Sunday's Game of Thrones. It didn't lack for incident.

Game of Thrones is, IMO, the best series HBO has ever produced, and I'm not even a fan of the genre in general. It's a sweeping story, it's unpredictable (to those of us who haven't read the books), and the production values are incomparable.

The only Jews whose culture incorporates the contents of the Talmud overtly are the Orthodox, haredim and hasidim. Secular Jews like Weiner and his parents don't live in a manner that the hardcore practitioners consider Jewish. Some secular Jews, perhaps Mr. Weiner, develop guilty feelings over this and attempt to show their Jewishness in other ways. Other secular Jews aren't bothered by distance from Judaism.

There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined “moral community” and only when the “morally worthless” are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.

And don’t blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century. With or without Jews, we would still be facing the dilemma that is facing us now.

Well now there you have a point. That’s not Weiner, but Marx sure has a lot of millions on his tab. Bu couldn’t we say that people like Engels share it too? I mean, good old Germanic Engels provided much research and even bankrolled Marx, though Marx still kept dodging bill collectors and dragging his family through hell.

Marx wasn’t the founder of “Communism”. Robert Owen was the founder of communism, and Lenin was the founder of “Communism”.

There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined “moral community” and only when the “morally worthless” are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.

And don’t blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century. With or without Jews, we would still be facing the dilemma that is facing us now.

The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined “moral community” and only when the “morally worthless” are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.

And don’t blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century.

This is empirically and theoretically untenable.

First, he begs the question: “By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant.” But the question was whether we did it, whether someone else did it, or whether we and someone else did it together.

Second, it’s not true that our moral system has been expanded (note the passive voice) to encompass the whole world; it hasn’t. If it had been, then non-White races would be held to the same standard that the White race is, a standard that — according to Frost — appears to require racial suicide.

Third, the actual problem has completely eluded him. It’s not that we’re too inclusive; it’s not that we fail to discriminate against nonself. It’s that our moral code is inverted. Instead of a racial immune system that discriminates in favor of the self, we have an immune system that discriminates against the self. Unlike the propensity and capacity to build large societies involving high trust and cooperation among strangers (which has both advantages and disadvantages and which may be adaptive under some circumstances and maladaptive under others), an inverted immune system is entirely disadvantageous and could not have evolved. Theoretically it must be the result of outside influence.

Fourth, and anticlimactically, the empire building of the 19th century was largely a Jewish project. Has he never heard of Disraeli? Rothschild? Reuters? Oppenheimer? Sassoon?

The origins of the British Empire go back farther than the 19th century. Even if you discount the Plantations of Ireland and the American colonies, the British government started asserting greater control over the East India Company with the Regulating Act of 1773 and Pitt's India Act of 1784. Britain would have had an Empire whether or not there were any Jews in Britain.

The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined “moral community” and only when the “morally worthless” are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.

And don’t blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century.

This is empirically and theoretically untenable.

First, he begs the question: "By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant." But the question was whether we did it, whether someone else did it, or whether we and someone else did it together.

Second, it's not true that our moral system has been expanded (note the passive voice) to encompass the whole world; it hasn't. If it had been, then non-White races would be held to the same standard that the White race is, a standard that -- according to Frost -- appears to require racial suicide.

Third, the actual problem has completely eluded him. It's not that we're too inclusive; it's not that we fail to discriminate against nonself. It's that our moral code is inverted. Instead of a racial immune system that discriminates in favor of the self, we have an immune system that discriminates against the self. Unlike the propensity and capacity to build large societies involving high trust and cooperation among strangers (which has both advantages and disadvantages and which may be adaptive under some circumstances and maladaptive under others), an inverted immune system is entirely disadvantageous and could not have evolved. Theoretically it must be the result of outside influence.

Fourth, and anticlimactically, the empire building of the 19th century was largely a Jewish project. Has he never heard of Disraeli? Rothschild? Reuters? Oppenheimer? Sassoon?

The origins of the British Empire go back farther than the 19th century. Even if you discount the Plantations of Ireland and the American colonies, the British government started asserting greater control over the East India Company with the Regulating Act of 1773 and Pitt’s India Act of 1784. Britain would have had an Empire whether or not there were any Jews in Britain.

The origins of the British Empire go back farther than the 19th century.

Sure, but Frost was talking about the 19th century.

Even if you discount the Plantations of Ireland and the American colonies, the British government started asserting greater control over the East India Company with the Regulating Act of 1773 and Pitt’s India Act of 1784. Britain would have had an Empire whether or not there were any Jews in Britain.

I don't understand. There were Jews in Britain in 1773. You might be right, but your argument does nothing to support your conclusion.

The origins of the British Empire go back farther than the 19th century. Even if you discount the Plantations of Ireland and the American colonies, the British government started asserting greater control over the East India Company with the Regulating Act of 1773 and Pitt's India Act of 1784. Britain would have had an Empire whether or not there were any Jews in Britain.

The origins of the British Empire go back farther than the 19th century.

Sure, but Frost was talking about the 19th century.

Even if you discount the Plantations of Ireland and the American colonies, the British government started asserting greater control over the East India Company with the Regulating Act of 1773 and Pitt’s India Act of 1784. Britain would have had an Empire whether or not there were any Jews in Britain.

I don’t understand. There were Jews in Britain in 1773. You might be right, but your argument does nothing to support your conclusion.

You listed Jewish people/families prominent in Britain and British imperial policy after the dates of the first legislative acts establishing measures of government control over the East India Company (e.g. Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the first member of that family to settle in Britain, didn't arrive until 1798). Please name for us British Jews involved in setting British imperial policy no later than 1784.

The origins of the British Empire go back farther than the 19th century.

Sure, but Frost was talking about the 19th century.

Even if you discount the Plantations of Ireland and the American colonies, the British government started asserting greater control over the East India Company with the Regulating Act of 1773 and Pitt’s India Act of 1784. Britain would have had an Empire whether or not there were any Jews in Britain.

I don't understand. There were Jews in Britain in 1773. You might be right, but your argument does nothing to support your conclusion.

You listed Jewish people/families prominent in Britain and British imperial policy after the dates of the first legislative acts establishing measures of government control over the East India Company (e.g. Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the first member of that family to settle in Britain, didn’t arrive until 1798). Please name for us British Jews involved in setting British imperial policy no later than 1784.

If you have the intention to comment in this thread more than once, then please choose a frigging moniker so that people can know which of the comments were made by you and which weren't. Otherwise it's quite difficult to keep a conversation, because one will always find it difficult to hold anything you've said against you, in part because you might deny it, but in part because it will simply be guesswork and most people won't bother.

Am I correct that you are the same Anonymous who replied to my comments in one of Anatoly Karlin's posts (about Lee Kuan Yew), or am I incorrect? Your first reply there already contained information about me that you could only possibly learn from my comments in other posts, so again you are gaining an unfair advantage against others by hiding your history from us.

If you have above average intelligence (which, based on your comments, you surely do have), than probably it takes roughly 3 minutes for you to come up with a moniker which will be suitable enough to be used in perpetuity. It doesn't need to be funny or anything, just something that can be used long enough so that others will be able to follow threads where you participate.

How would Weiner have been different if, instead of going to Harvard high school, he had gone to the LAUSD public high school which Hancock Park is zoned for, Fairfax High? By Weiner’s teenage years it was no longer the school which produced entertainment figures and was becoming more and more black, from what I read.

But damn, this over privileged old sissy seeing himself as an “excluded/oppressed, non-White/person of color” is as bizarre as if he said he saw himself as a tall, handsome, ex Navy SEAL/biker hell raiser who got all the hot girls in high school/college and beyond.

Mad Men - The CarouselMad Men first season finale, "The Wheel." Don pitches a campaign to Kodak for their new slide projector.Arguably the best few minutes of television, and certainly the best of Mad Men.

*****If you are going to watch any season of Mad Men see Season One. The soap opera content got larger after Season One. I read that more female writers and directors were brought in after Season One. So it became more female "issues" oriented.

It’s a great scene.

My father had one of those carousels. Something ironic I just realized: sharing vacation photos with them was a lot more social than sharing is today with Instagram and social media. Because when you used the slide projector, you were all in the same room together.

I very much enjoyed the first few hours of Season One of Mad Men. Then I got bored, but I always get bored after about six hours because I'm more interested in the "world creation" aspect and I pick up on that pretty fast and then move on to new things. I watched six hours of Breaking Bad and that was even better, but six hours is plenty. After about six hours of any serial, most things turn into soap operas, which is fine, but I'm deficient in the urge to care about the fates of fictional characters across protracted periods of time.

The thing I liked about Breaking Bad that I guess you didn’t appreciate is how the writers let Mr. White and Pinkman succeed at the meth business and earn a lot of money. It’s the opposite of how other series such as, say, Battlestar Galactica or Gilligan’s Island were structured: with a quest that the protagonists aim for and never achieve, until maybe the series finale.

It would have been easier, in a way, and required less imagination, to keep White and Pinkman small timers who get knocked down a peg every time they try to advance, but, instead, the writers let them advance, and then explored what happened at the next level of success. Mr. White fulfills is monetary goal – then what happens? They show that.

All these shows move too slow and are halfway predictable so I understand your take on them. I can only watch them if I am on the internet at the same time. I just watched the new Game of Thrones while perusing comments here at iSteve-Unz. No lie, but I don't watch much TV.

I often am on the Internet when I watch TV, but I’m glad I wasn’t for Sunday’s Game of Thrones. It didn’t lack for incident.

Game of Thrones is, IMO, the best series HBO has ever produced, and I’m not even a fan of the genre in general. It’s a sweeping story, it’s unpredictable (to those of us who haven’t read the books), and the production values are incomparable.

Actually, I try in person, quite a bit, but I have very little influence in real life. I could spend my whole life advocating against, say, immigration and still not make as much of a splash as Sheldon Adelson.

It's like the honest black guy--are you really going to be able to get your ghetto cousins to stop banging and slanging?

I didn’t want to pick on you, your comments are always worth to read and contribute to the discussion here, so I didn’t really have you in mind when I wrote that.

My point was simply that the ongoing Suicide of the West needs discussion as to its ethnic origins (whether Jews are and were a necessary but not sufficient element, fans cheering for something not of their making, or simply bystanders), and I don’t think there’s a both intelligent and honest way to stop the discussion in its tracks by changing the subject to class or anything like that. (Not that there’s no need to discuss class and other factors.) It doesn’t mean that at the end, Jews will prove to be a necessary element for all this, just that at this point I cannot really see how this could be ruled out. And if it cannot be ruled out then we cannot say we shouldn’t talk about it.

I also have some arguments that on average, Jews are more leftist than gentile whites. And even otherwise (regarding Israel far rightist and nationalist) Jewish ethnic activists are pushing for leftist suicidal policies for gentile white countries. In fact, it would be difficult for me to name just one Jewish nationalist who is taking a stand against suicidal policies in white countries. Sure, there’s Paul Gottfried.

So I think that even at this point the ‘bystander’ option has very little chance of being true. I’d bet that it’s either Jews pushing for something which would have happened anyway (that makes them an enemy, even if an ineffectual one), or them being the culprits.

Naah, you're right. Excessively personalizing the discussion is the sure remark of an unreconstructed leftist, I suppose. ;)

I think my original point was that there's a heavy class component to the betrayal of the West, involving the fact that rich people don't live with the diversity they import. One of the ironies of the antisegregation struggle was that it involved rich and middle-class people from the North integrating the lower classes by force.

My personal take on partitioning blame (which is really sort of a useless exercise) is that there was a sharp turn to the left on racial issues after WW2 among the upper classes due to revulsion at Nazism, and that let the Jews get into place and shift things further to the left. But they had the acquiescence of much of the old WASP elite in that regard. There were also issues, as I recall, regarding segregation making the USA look bad and hurting us in the ideological struggle with Communism--here we are talking about liberty and keeping black people down. There was an old Soviet joke that the answer to 'What is the price of bread?' was 'In America they lynch Negroes'.

Still, by and large you are correct, at least as regards the USA. Of course, Europe has much smaller Jewish populations, and while they are largely pro-immivasion they do not have the clout by themselves to explain the whole thing. Are Sweden's 15,000 Jews enough to cause Malmo, or is it an unholy combination of business interests that want cheap labor and silly liberals who believe in diversity?

BTW, Perot was polling ahead of Bush and Clinton before he self-destructed. So there's some evidence economic nationalism, at least, can have legs.

You listed Jewish people/families prominent in Britain and British imperial policy after the dates of the first legislative acts establishing measures of government control over the East India Company (e.g. Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the first member of that family to settle in Britain, didn't arrive until 1798). Please name for us British Jews involved in setting British imperial policy no later than 1784.

Anonymous,

If you have the intention to comment in this thread more than once, then please choose a frigging moniker so that people can know which of the comments were made by you and which weren’t. Otherwise it’s quite difficult to keep a conversation, because one will always find it difficult to hold anything you’ve said against you, in part because you might deny it, but in part because it will simply be guesswork and most people won’t bother.

Am I correct that you are the same Anonymous who replied to my comments in one of Anatoly Karlin’s posts (about Lee Kuan Yew), or am I incorrect? Your first reply there already contained information about me that you could only possibly learn from my comments in other posts, so again you are gaining an unfair advantage against others by hiding your history from us.

If you have above average intelligence (which, based on your comments, you surely do have), than probably it takes roughly 3 minutes for you to come up with a moniker which will be suitable enough to be used in perpetuity. It doesn’t need to be funny or anything, just something that can be used long enough so that others will be able to follow threads where you participate.

The point is genetic similarity. Jews, Italians, and Greeks are more closely related than they are to groups like Scandinavians, so it makes no sense to call Jews an "outlier" group of Europe unless you're prepared to call Greeks and Italians "outliers" of Europe as well, which is nonsensical.

As for culture or personality, I don't think Greeks are generally regarded as being more like Scandinavians than they are like Jews.

Sarcoma is a tumor, not an actual organism, so that's not an example at all, just a tasteless comment.

Canine venereal sarcoma is a unicellular organism, and since you’ve mentioned Greg Cochran’s name in this thread, I’m sure you are aware that Greg thinks it’s a mammal. (I proposed in the comment section that we start using ‘mammal’ as a paraphyletic category instead, because to me it’s just too much of a stretch to call a unicellular organism a mammal simply because it’s descended from mammals.) Currently it’s a parasite, and I don’t know if it will ever evolve in any other direction (it might even go extinct), but that doesn’t really matter for the purposes of this discussion.

I think my point is easily understood, whether you think it was tasteless or not. Some people think it’s tasteless to compare humans (biological organisms) to other biological organisms, but obviously such comparisons cannot be avoided when we are talking about phylogenetic trees – for example whether Jews were outliers among Europeans, or whether dogs were more closely related to canine venereal sarcoma than they are to mice. As is obvious from my examples, an organism can surely resemble more its distant relatives than some of its close relatives if selection pressures were highly divergent. Jews in many respects more closely resemble other market dominant minorities than they do Greeks. Some Greeks fled Greece after the civil war in the 1940s, and a few hundred of these communist Greeks were settled in Hungary. I personally know some of them, and I’d say they resembled average Hungarians more than they did the Jews, for example in intellectual abilities, but some other respects, too. So I wouldn’t think it was absurd to think that both Greeks and Scandinavians might actually be closer to our fictitious Average European than to Jews.

And of course you know that Irish Travellers are more closely related to the Irish than they are to anybody else (and vice versa), yet of course you understood my point that for everyday use it makes great sense to lump the Irish together with their distant cousins the Greeks and to create a separate category for the Travellers (or even lump them together with Gypsies of Indian origins). Will you also get indignant regarding whether someone is comparing Jews to Travellers, or will you instead just understand my point? (Which actually has very little to do with the fact that at present the Travellers, too, are parasites.)

There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined “moral community” and only when the “morally worthless” are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.

And don’t blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century. With or without Jews, we would still be facing the dilemma that is facing us now.

I also mentioned Peter Frost’s opinion in another comment in this thread.

As Ben Tillman mentioned, it’s not that we extended the moral community to the whole world, because we don’t hold third worlders to the same standards as we do ourselves. In the 16th century Spanish conquistadors were appalled at the Indios’ practice of human sacrifice and many other things like that, and it justified – in their eyes – their mass enslavement. The same arguments were used to enslave Africans – they didn’t live up to our moral standards, so we could do anything to them. So extending the moral community to the whole world actually doesn’t necessarily lead to the present suicidal morality, one could argue it actually leads to the opposite.

Another point is that even if it was true that our moral system, when taken to its logical conclusion, would become a suicide pact, it still doesn’t answer the question why we took our pre-existent moral system to its logical conclusion. After all, people don’t usually take their moral systems to their logical conclusions. Even today’s leftists don’t do that, they preach environmental protection and immigration but then drive gas-guzzlers and practice white flight. A Hungarian parody hip-hop song about Hungarians’ conversion to Christianity sums it up, “let’s convert to this religion of love, and then let’s dismember anybody who disagrees with it”. There needs to be an explanation why Europeans took their moral system to its logical conclusion, even if that was its logical conclusion.

I didn't want to pick on you, your comments are always worth to read and contribute to the discussion here, so I didn't really have you in mind when I wrote that.

My point was simply that the ongoing Suicide of the West needs discussion as to its ethnic origins (whether Jews are and were a necessary but not sufficient element, fans cheering for something not of their making, or simply bystanders), and I don't think there's a both intelligent and honest way to stop the discussion in its tracks by changing the subject to class or anything like that. (Not that there's no need to discuss class and other factors.) It doesn't mean that at the end, Jews will prove to be a necessary element for all this, just that at this point I cannot really see how this could be ruled out. And if it cannot be ruled out then we cannot say we shouldn't talk about it.

I also have some arguments that on average, Jews are more leftist than gentile whites. And even otherwise (regarding Israel far rightist and nationalist) Jewish ethnic activists are pushing for leftist suicidal policies for gentile white countries. In fact, it would be difficult for me to name just one Jewish nationalist who is taking a stand against suicidal policies in white countries. Sure, there's Paul Gottfried.

So I think that even at this point the 'bystander' option has very little chance of being true. I'd bet that it's either Jews pushing for something which would have happened anyway (that makes them an enemy, even if an ineffectual one), or them being the culprits.

Naah, you’re right. Excessively personalizing the discussion is the sure remark of an unreconstructed leftist, I suppose.

I think my original point was that there’s a heavy class component to the betrayal of the West, involving the fact that rich people don’t live with the diversity they import. One of the ironies of the antisegregation struggle was that it involved rich and middle-class people from the North integrating the lower classes by force.

My personal take on partitioning blame (which is really sort of a useless exercise) is that there was a sharp turn to the left on racial issues after WW2 among the upper classes due to revulsion at Nazism, and that let the Jews get into place and shift things further to the left. But they had the acquiescence of much of the old WASP elite in that regard. There were also issues, as I recall, regarding segregation making the USA look bad and hurting us in the ideological struggle with Communism–here we are talking about liberty and keeping black people down. There was an old Soviet joke that the answer to ‘What is the price of bread?’ was ‘In America they lynch Negroes’.

Still, by and large you are correct, at least as regards the USA. Of course, Europe has much smaller Jewish populations, and while they are largely pro-immivasion they do not have the clout by themselves to explain the whole thing. Are Sweden’s 15,000 Jews enough to cause Malmo, or is it an unholy combination of business interests that want cheap labor and silly liberals who believe in diversity?

BTW, Perot was polling ahead of Bush and Clinton before he self-destructed. So there’s some evidence economic nationalism, at least, can have legs.

Of course, Europe has much smaller Jewish populations, and while they are largely pro-immivasion they do not have the clout by themselves to explain the whole thing.

In the data, Jews are more against immigration than for it.

1. Jewish-Americans' responses on immigration: 50% too high, 5% too low, 22% just right, 23% not sure. So we can't say Jews are for immigration, but we can say 27% of Jews are (5% too low + 22% just right).

We could say many Jewish elites are for immigration. But so are many Gentile elites, with 99.25% (397) of the Forbes 400 failing to voice an opinion against immigration, so if we want to be scientific, "elites" is the predictive quality, not "Jews."

Well, excessively personalizing the discussion is a sign of being a human. :) My comment was easy to misunderstand, at any rate.

Yes, there is/was a heavy class component to the betrayal, and the upper classes almost universally despise the lower classes anywhere (including, I guess, in Israel), yet for whatever reasons they rarely put much effort into destroying their own ethnic groups through immivasion or any other means. I mean, yeah, they don't care much either way, but before the 20th century Western elites didn't actively try to destroy their own constituencies. We have to remember that as late as 1930 the party of choice for most German elites was the DNVP, a party just slightly to the left of NSDAP. Churchill (who was a prime minister in the fifties) held so deeply 'racist' views that just a few quotes from him - if uttered in our age - would suffice to destroy the careers of anyone.

Europe has much smaller Jewish populations

France and the UK (until the reunification of Germany the two most important countries in Europe) both have roughly 0.5-1% Jewish populations, and their influence - needless to say - is much higher than numbers might tell you. For example in the UK the majority of Tory MPs are affiliated with the organization Conservative Friends of Israel, and Labour Friends of Israel is also one of the largest special interest groups within the Labour Party. Do you have any doubt in your mind that these wouldn't be there (or at least not nearly as influential) if Jewish ethnic activists weren't pouring tremendous money into them?

Another very important point is that we have a global culture. If multiculturalism conquers the US, because the US is the most culturally influential country in the world (do you have any doubt in your mind that Hollywood's influence doesn't stop at the US borders?), it's inevitable that it will have a lot of influence elsewhere. Also US universities' influence is strong in part because the best and the brightest from Europe will also attend them. If these universities become bastions of cultural Marxism, then the best and the brightest in Europe will inevitably be influenced by this. The list could go on.

Are Sweden’s 15,000 Jews enough to cause Malmo

I think the six to eight million Jews in the US are also not sufficient in and of themselves to cause immigration, gay marriage, etc.

But that's not the statement of MacDonald. MacDonald says that they were a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the changes in the US and in much of Western Europe. If you combine that with American (and to a lesser extent British etc.) cultural influence, you'll end up with cultural Marxism everywhere. At least, that's the theory, which needs to be corroborated or refuted.

Most secular Jews like Matthew Weiner can’t read the Talmud and are minimally familiar with anything in it.

But he doesn't have to get anything directly from the Talmud to the extent his culture incorporates its contents.

The only Jews whose culture incorporates the contents of the Talmud overtly are the Orthodox, haredim and hasidim. Secular Jews like Weiner and his parents don’t live in a manner that the hardcore practitioners consider Jewish. Some secular Jews, perhaps Mr. Weiner, develop guilty feelings over this and attempt to show their Jewishness in other ways. Other secular Jews aren’t bothered by distance from Judaism.

I am not a Christian. My parents never had a Christian education, and (obviously) their parents weren't exactly religious either. This of course doesn't mean that my cultural background owes nothing to the Christian Bible.

Likewise, third generation secular Jews' cultural background could still contain many elements from the Talmud, even without them ever realizing it.

All Jews are born into the milieu of the Talmud. Why do atheist Jews, Hindu Jews, Secular Jews, or any non-Orthodox or Orthodox or whatever Jew take their identity as Jew?

On what basis do they claim Jew?

When did the modern so called Jews change from Patriarchal lineage to matriarchal?

Why is Sacha Baron Cohen's wife Isla Fisher a Jew?

It's all from the Talmud, my friend.

It's very much like how no one can understand ISIS, Daesh, ICIL or whatever they are now called and our WASP leaders keep telling us Islam is a religion of peace, yet I can simply go to the King Fahd koran online and get the Wahhabist definition of Jihad first hand. People act perplexed, no one understand why the Sunni Muslims do what they do, yet there it is, all online.

There are moderate Sunnis, in other words those who do not act on the King Fahd, and are condemned, and those who take it for the principles it expresses.

In either case they are Sunnis. So with the Jews. The only reason Jews take their lineage from their mother, btw, is because that is how the Talmud defines it.

If you have the intention to comment in this thread more than once, then please choose a frigging moniker so that people can know which of the comments were made by you and which weren't. Otherwise it's quite difficult to keep a conversation, because one will always find it difficult to hold anything you've said against you, in part because you might deny it, but in part because it will simply be guesswork and most people won't bother.

Am I correct that you are the same Anonymous who replied to my comments in one of Anatoly Karlin's posts (about Lee Kuan Yew), or am I incorrect? Your first reply there already contained information about me that you could only possibly learn from my comments in other posts, so again you are gaining an unfair advantage against others by hiding your history from us.

If you have above average intelligence (which, based on your comments, you surely do have), than probably it takes roughly 3 minutes for you to come up with a moniker which will be suitable enough to be used in perpetuity. It doesn't need to be funny or anything, just something that can be used long enough so that others will be able to follow threads where you participate.

I don’t read Anatoly Karlin’s blog, didn’t participate in a comment conversation with you there, and know nothing about your background other than what you’ve told us here.

Naive uniparental haplogroup counting overestimates sub-Saharan African admixture in southern Europeans. There are years' worth of autosomal DNA studies looking at hundreds of thousands of loci across the genome to confirm that. One reason is that it takes only one ancestor at the right position in a family tree to confer a Y-chromosome haplogroup or mitochondrial DNA haplogroup into perpetuity. Most of the Early Farmers who carried Y-haplogroup E3b into Europe many thousands of years ago had at most very dilute sub-Saharan ancestry. Then consider that all dating estimates in these studies should be taken with a grain of salt. I've seen studies that estimated much older divergence times for E3b outside of Africa from E3b within sub-Saharan Africa than the studies you linked. If the divergence occurred more than 20,000 years ago, was anyone in Europe yet "white?" If anything, there is now evidence that the Early Farmers introduced the skin lightening mutations. The Hunter Gatherers were dark-skinned but light-eyed.

The data shows that sub-Saharan African DNA elements well embedded in place and shows up in certain southern European populations- everything from the cystic fibrosis mutations, to the traces of Benin sickle cell marker, to the HLA 6 data. Does this mean that all Greeks are ‘Africans’? No, they are primarily a European population, with racial admixture from sub-Saharan Africans. The divergence times make no difference, for the African DNA markers are still there and quite detectable. And true, White skin is only a relatively recent occurrence. Those early Europeans looked more like sub-Saharan Africans, as also their limb proportions show. And while a combination of dark skin and blue or light colored eyes does not show up much at all in Europe anymore, it is not at all unusual in Africa.
And are you sure the early farmers from the Middle East brought lighter skin? According to whom?

Paleogenetic analysis of prehistoric remains from Europe has shown that the skin lightening mutations were not present in the Paleolithic or Mesolithic inhabitants but were present in the remains of some Neolithic inhabitants at least partially descended from Early Farmer migrants.

The African genetic markers you cite are found at very low frequencies in Greece and southern Italy. They didn't necessarily come with the Early Farmers, either. Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years, and sub-Saharan slaves could have entered via that conduit or via dilute sub-Saharan ancestry among settlers from the Ottoman Empire. S outhern Italy was subjected to Moorish raids for centuries, and Arabs were living there during the reign of Frederick II in the 12th century.

There is a broader aspect to this flight from white. Here in the NYC area, northern European people have been migrating to other parts of the country increasingly and are mostly found today in the outer most suburbs. The “white” population is increasingly Italian, Portuguese, Greek, Yugoslavian and other Southern and Eastern Europeans, not to mention the officially white Arabs, Turks and of course, colossal numbers of all different kinds of Jews.

Many of these people draw a distinction between themselves and “white” white people — NW European Americans. This attitude is increasing, not decreasing. Younger people from these ethnic groups have their own sub cultures and social lives apart from “white” white Americans. I know something similar is happening in the LA area.

Naah, you're right. Excessively personalizing the discussion is the sure remark of an unreconstructed leftist, I suppose. ;)

I think my original point was that there's a heavy class component to the betrayal of the West, involving the fact that rich people don't live with the diversity they import. One of the ironies of the antisegregation struggle was that it involved rich and middle-class people from the North integrating the lower classes by force.

My personal take on partitioning blame (which is really sort of a useless exercise) is that there was a sharp turn to the left on racial issues after WW2 among the upper classes due to revulsion at Nazism, and that let the Jews get into place and shift things further to the left. But they had the acquiescence of much of the old WASP elite in that regard. There were also issues, as I recall, regarding segregation making the USA look bad and hurting us in the ideological struggle with Communism--here we are talking about liberty and keeping black people down. There was an old Soviet joke that the answer to 'What is the price of bread?' was 'In America they lynch Negroes'.

Still, by and large you are correct, at least as regards the USA. Of course, Europe has much smaller Jewish populations, and while they are largely pro-immivasion they do not have the clout by themselves to explain the whole thing. Are Sweden's 15,000 Jews enough to cause Malmo, or is it an unholy combination of business interests that want cheap labor and silly liberals who believe in diversity?

BTW, Perot was polling ahead of Bush and Clinton before he self-destructed. So there's some evidence economic nationalism, at least, can have legs.

Of course, Europe has much smaller Jewish populations, and while they are largely pro-immivasion they do not have the clout by themselves to explain the whole thing.

In the data, Jews are more against immigration than for it.

1. Jewish-Americans’ responses on immigration: 50% too high, 5% too low, 22% just right, 23% not sure. So we can’t say Jews are for immigration, but we can say 27% of Jews are (5% too low + 22% just right).

We could say many Jewish elites are for immigration. But so are many Gentile elites, with 99.25% (397) of the Forbes 400 failing to voice an opinion against immigration, so if we want to be scientific, “elites” is the predictive quality, not “Jews.”

That is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality, to paraphrase Midge Decter. However, it doesn't disprove the idea that Jews were behind the triumph of cultural Marxism.

We could say many Jewish elites are for immigration. But so are many Gentile elites, with 99.25% (397) of the Forbes 400 failing to voice an opinion against immigration, so if we want to be scientific, “elites” is the predictive quality, not “Jews.”

The question is, how enthusiastic they are. Are they enthusiastic enough to give a lot of money to politicians to push for that? And what is "a lot" here? It is well known that Jewish billionaires spend more on politics, whereas gentile billionaires have a lot of other hobby horses in this race, so campaign contributions are disproportionately coming from Jewish billionaires. It seems to me Jewish elites matter more than gentile elites. Moreover, pro-immigration positions have become so fashionable among elites only after the proportion of Jews became very high among them (like maybe over 20%) and after the influence of Hollywood (where again, non-gentiles are somehow dominating) became universal.

Again, the proposition is not that Jews did all this. The proposition is that Jews were a necessary (but not sufficient) element.

Naah, you're right. Excessively personalizing the discussion is the sure remark of an unreconstructed leftist, I suppose. ;)

I think my original point was that there's a heavy class component to the betrayal of the West, involving the fact that rich people don't live with the diversity they import. One of the ironies of the antisegregation struggle was that it involved rich and middle-class people from the North integrating the lower classes by force.

My personal take on partitioning blame (which is really sort of a useless exercise) is that there was a sharp turn to the left on racial issues after WW2 among the upper classes due to revulsion at Nazism, and that let the Jews get into place and shift things further to the left. But they had the acquiescence of much of the old WASP elite in that regard. There were also issues, as I recall, regarding segregation making the USA look bad and hurting us in the ideological struggle with Communism--here we are talking about liberty and keeping black people down. There was an old Soviet joke that the answer to 'What is the price of bread?' was 'In America they lynch Negroes'.

Still, by and large you are correct, at least as regards the USA. Of course, Europe has much smaller Jewish populations, and while they are largely pro-immivasion they do not have the clout by themselves to explain the whole thing. Are Sweden's 15,000 Jews enough to cause Malmo, or is it an unholy combination of business interests that want cheap labor and silly liberals who believe in diversity?

BTW, Perot was polling ahead of Bush and Clinton before he self-destructed. So there's some evidence economic nationalism, at least, can have legs.

Well, excessively personalizing the discussion is a sign of being a human. My comment was easy to misunderstand, at any rate.

Yes, there is/was a heavy class component to the betrayal, and the upper classes almost universally despise the lower classes anywhere (including, I guess, in Israel), yet for whatever reasons they rarely put much effort into destroying their own ethnic groups through immivasion or any other means. I mean, yeah, they don’t care much either way, but before the 20th century Western elites didn’t actively try to destroy their own constituencies. We have to remember that as late as 1930 the party of choice for most German elites was the DNVP, a party just slightly to the left of NSDAP. Churchill (who was a prime minister in the fifties) held so deeply ‘racist’ views that just a few quotes from him – if uttered in our age – would suffice to destroy the careers of anyone.

Europe has much smaller Jewish populations

France and the UK (until the reunification of Germany the two most important countries in Europe) both have roughly 0.5-1% Jewish populations, and their influence – needless to say – is much higher than numbers might tell you. For example in the UK the majority of Tory MPs are affiliated with the organization Conservative Friends of Israel, and Labour Friends of Israel is also one of the largest special interest groups within the Labour Party. Do you have any doubt in your mind that these wouldn’t be there (or at least not nearly as influential) if Jewish ethnic activists weren’t pouring tremendous money into them?

Another very important point is that we have a global culture. If multiculturalism conquers the US, because the US is the most culturally influential country in the world (do you have any doubt in your mind that Hollywood’s influence doesn’t stop at the US borders?), it’s inevitable that it will have a lot of influence elsewhere. Also US universities’ influence is strong in part because the best and the brightest from Europe will also attend them. If these universities become bastions of cultural Marxism, then the best and the brightest in Europe will inevitably be influenced by this. The list could go on.

Are Sweden’s 15,000 Jews enough to cause Malmo

I think the six to eight million Jews in the US are also not sufficient in and of themselves to cause immigration, gay marriage, etc.

But that’s not the statement of MacDonald. MacDonald says that they were a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the changes in the US and in much of Western Europe. If you combine that with American (and to a lesser extent British etc.) cultural influence, you’ll end up with cultural Marxism everywhere. At least, that’s the theory, which needs to be corroborated or refuted.

Of course, Europe has much smaller Jewish populations, and while they are largely pro-immivasion they do not have the clout by themselves to explain the whole thing.

In the data, Jews are more against immigration than for it.

1. Jewish-Americans' responses on immigration: 50% too high, 5% too low, 22% just right, 23% not sure. So we can't say Jews are for immigration, but we can say 27% of Jews are (5% too low + 22% just right).

We could say many Jewish elites are for immigration. But so are many Gentile elites, with 99.25% (397) of the Forbes 400 failing to voice an opinion against immigration, so if we want to be scientific, "elites" is the predictive quality, not "Jews."

(Hat tip to commenter Mark Minter. His comment here a few weeks ago received no attention.)

That is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality, to paraphrase Midge Decter. However, it doesn’t disprove the idea that Jews were behind the triumph of cultural Marxism.

We could say many Jewish elites are for immigration. But so are many Gentile elites, with 99.25% (397) of the Forbes 400 failing to voice an opinion against immigration, so if we want to be scientific, “elites” is the predictive quality, not “Jews.”

The question is, how enthusiastic they are. Are they enthusiastic enough to give a lot of money to politicians to push for that? And what is “a lot” here? It is well known that Jewish billionaires spend more on politics, whereas gentile billionaires have a lot of other hobby horses in this race, so campaign contributions are disproportionately coming from Jewish billionaires. It seems to me Jewish elites matter more than gentile elites. Moreover, pro-immigration positions have become so fashionable among elites only after the proportion of Jews became very high among them (like maybe over 20%) and after the influence of Hollywood (where again, non-gentiles are somehow dominating) became universal.

Again, the proposition is not that Jews did all this. The proposition is that Jews were a necessary (but not sufficient) element.

Again, the proposition is not that Jews did all this. The proposition is that Jews were a necessary (but not sufficient) element.

Other trends that could be described as potentially necessary but not sufficient would include NW-euros' nice temperament, capitalists and the chamber of commerce, Christians, slavery, the U.S. bordering Latin America, and women's suffrage.

The only Jews whose culture incorporates the contents of the Talmud overtly are the Orthodox, haredim and hasidim. Secular Jews like Weiner and his parents don't live in a manner that the hardcore practitioners consider Jewish. Some secular Jews, perhaps Mr. Weiner, develop guilty feelings over this and attempt to show their Jewishness in other ways. Other secular Jews aren't bothered by distance from Judaism.

I am not a Christian. My parents never had a Christian education, and (obviously) their parents weren’t exactly religious either. This of course doesn’t mean that my cultural background owes nothing to the Christian Bible.

Likewise, third generation secular Jews’ cultural background could still contain many elements from the Talmud, even without them ever realizing it.

That is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality, to paraphrase Midge Decter. However, it doesn't disprove the idea that Jews were behind the triumph of cultural Marxism.

We could say many Jewish elites are for immigration. But so are many Gentile elites, with 99.25% (397) of the Forbes 400 failing to voice an opinion against immigration, so if we want to be scientific, “elites” is the predictive quality, not “Jews.”

The question is, how enthusiastic they are. Are they enthusiastic enough to give a lot of money to politicians to push for that? And what is "a lot" here? It is well known that Jewish billionaires spend more on politics, whereas gentile billionaires have a lot of other hobby horses in this race, so campaign contributions are disproportionately coming from Jewish billionaires. It seems to me Jewish elites matter more than gentile elites. Moreover, pro-immigration positions have become so fashionable among elites only after the proportion of Jews became very high among them (like maybe over 20%) and after the influence of Hollywood (where again, non-gentiles are somehow dominating) became universal.

Again, the proposition is not that Jews did all this. The proposition is that Jews were a necessary (but not sufficient) element.

Again, the proposition is not that Jews did all this. The proposition is that Jews were a necessary (but not sufficient) element.

Other trends that could be described as potentially necessary but not sufficient would include NW-euros’ nice temperament, capitalists and the chamber of commerce, Christians, slavery, the U.S. bordering Latin America, and women’s suffrage.

Women were more conservative in 1920 than were men. It took about 50 years for them to flank us on the left. But note that they handed a whopping victory to Warren G Harding, who signed an immigration bill within days of his inauguration.

Women can get very conservative very quickly where their children are concerned. Indeed, that's why they vote for the welfare state-- to conserve it. We just have to reframe the issue the same way, for their children and their country.

Again, the proposition is not that Jews did all this. The proposition is that Jews were a necessary (but not sufficient) element.

Other trends that could be described as potentially necessary but not sufficient would include NW-euros' nice temperament, capitalists and the chamber of commerce, Christians, slavery, the U.S. bordering Latin America, and women's suffrage.

There were so many trends pointing in the same direction...

…and women’s suffrage.

Women were more conservative in 1920 than were men. It took about 50 years for them to flank us on the left. But note that they handed a whopping victory to Warren G Harding, who signed an immigration bill within days of his inauguration.

Women can get very conservative very quickly where their children are concerned. Indeed, that’s why they vote for the welfare state– to conserve it. We just have to reframe the issue the same way, for their children and their country.

The only Jews whose culture incorporates the contents of the Talmud overtly are the Orthodox, haredim and hasidim. Secular Jews like Weiner and his parents don't live in a manner that the hardcore practitioners consider Jewish. Some secular Jews, perhaps Mr. Weiner, develop guilty feelings over this and attempt to show their Jewishness in other ways. Other secular Jews aren't bothered by distance from Judaism.

All Jews are born into the milieu of the Talmud. Why do atheist Jews, Hindu Jews, Secular Jews, or any non-Orthodox or Orthodox or whatever Jew take their identity as Jew?

On what basis do they claim Jew?

When did the modern so called Jews change from Patriarchal lineage to matriarchal?

Why is Sacha Baron Cohen’s wife Isla Fisher a Jew?

It’s all from the Talmud, my friend.

It’s very much like how no one can understand ISIS, Daesh, ICIL or whatever they are now called and our WASP leaders keep telling us Islam is a religion of peace, yet I can simply go to the King Fahd koran online and get the Wahhabist definition of Jihad first hand. People act perplexed, no one understand why the Sunni Muslims do what they do, yet there it is, all online.

There are moderate Sunnis, in other words those who do not act on the King Fahd, and are condemned, and those who take it for the principles it expresses.

In either case they are Sunnis. So with the Jews. The only reason Jews take their lineage from their mother, btw, is because that is how the Talmud defines it.

My second link, the British Election Study (BES) 2015, was a measure of real world behavior.

In the 2015 UK elections, Jews voted at a higher rate for Conservative and UKIP party candidates than any other religious affiliation. http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2014/the-british-election-study-2015-religious-affiliation-and-attitudes/

Jews should view your links on Jewish-American congressmen voting for immigration, and they should see there's a need for better Jewish leadership on the issue, like that of Eric Zemmour. It's certainly in Jews' self-interest.

But most of those congressional seats would favor immigration regardless of which liberal figurehead holds the seat.

Jews should view your links on Jewish-American congressmen voting for immigration, and they should see there’s a need for better Jewish leadership on the issue, like that of Eric Zemmour. It’s certainly in Jews’ self-interest.

But most of those congressional seats would favor immigration regardless of which liberal figurehead holds the seat.

The data shows that sub-Saharan African DNA elements well embedded in place and shows up in certain southern European populations- everything from the cystic fibrosis mutations, to the traces of Benin sickle cell marker, to the HLA 6 data. Does this mean that all Greeks are 'Africans'? No, they are primarily a European population, with racial admixture from sub-Saharan Africans. The divergence times make no difference, for the African DNA markers are still there and quite detectable. And true, White skin is only a relatively recent occurrence. Those early Europeans looked more like sub-Saharan Africans, as also their limb proportions show. And while a combination of dark skin and blue or light colored eyes does not show up much at all in Europe anymore, it is not at all unusual in Africa.

http://imageshack.com/a/img837/6486/k892.jpg

And are you sure the early farmers from the Middle East brought lighter skin? According to whom?

Paleogenetic analysis of prehistoric remains from Europe has shown that the skin lightening mutations were not present in the Paleolithic or Mesolithic inhabitants but were present in the remains of some Neolithic inhabitants at least partially descended from Early Farmer migrants.

The African genetic markers you cite are found at very low frequencies in Greece and southern Italy. They didn’t necessarily come with the Early Farmers, either. Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years, and sub-Saharan slaves could have entered via that conduit or via dilute sub-Saharan ancestry among settlers from the Ottoman Empire. S outhern Italy was subjected to Moorish raids for centuries, and Arabs were living there during the reign of Frederick II in the 12th century.